Sola Scriptura in Early Church

The debate over sola Scriptura or the sufficiency of Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith is the area where Catholic apologists believe they have the strongest argument. I have already responded to the most common objections to sola Scriptura, but here I will be demonstrating from church history that sola Scriptura is the historic belief of the early church, not the invention of Protestants:

✔️“Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.8.1).

✔️“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed ‘perfect knowledge,’ as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1).

✔️“When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.2.1).

✔️“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, Stromata 7.16).

✔️“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. . . . So all of us who wish to practice 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 look; and whatever things they teach, these let us learn” (Hippolytus, Against Noetus 9).

✔️“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture” (Athanasius, De Synodis 6).

✔️“These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me’” (Athanasius, 39th Festal Letter).

✔️“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” (Ambrose, On the Duties of the Clergy 1.23.102).

✔️“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 4.17).

✔️“Now mind not my argumentations, for perhaps you may be misled but unless thou receive testimony of the Prophets on each matter, believe not what I say: unless thou learn from the Holy Scriptures concerning the Virgin, and the place, the time, and the manner, receive not testimony from man. For one who at present thus teaches may possibly be suspected: but what man of sense will suspect one that prophesied a thousand and more years beforehand? If then you seek the cause of Christ’s coming, go back to the first book of the Scriptures” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 12.5).

✔️“It would be the instigation of a demonical spirit to follow the conceits of the human mind, and to think anything divine, beyond what has the authority of the Scriptures” (Theophilus of Alexandria, Epistola 96; PL 22:778).

✔️“But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written” (Jerome, Against Helvidius 21).

✔️“We are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings” (Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection).

✔️“The hear­ers taught in the Scrip­tures ought to test what is said by teach­ers and accept that which agrees with the Scrip­tures but reject that which is for­eign” (Basil of Caesarea, Moralia 72).

✔️“Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth” (Basil of Caesarea, Letter 189).

✔️“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 to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right” (Basil of Caesarea, Letter 283).

✔️“Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things” (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Corinthians, Homily 13).

✔️“What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostles? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher” (Augustine, Of the Good of Widowhood 2).

✔️“It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place” (Augustine, Letter 82.3.24).

✔️“For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine” (Augustine, Letter 148.15).

✔️“You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity?” (Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.3).

✔️“Especially as in writings of such authors I feel myself free to use my own judgment (owing unhesitating assent to nothing but the canonical Scriptures), whilst in fact there is not a passage which he has quoted from the works of this anonymous author that disturbs me” (Augustine, On Nature and Grace 71).

✔️“This shows that the established authority of Scripture must outweigh every other; for it derives new confirmation from the progress of events which happen, as Scripture proves, in fulfillment of the predictions made so long before their occurrence” (Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 13.5).

✔️“In the matters of which we are now treating, only the canonical writings have any weight with us” (Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 23.9).

✔️“But for us the sufficient demonstration of the soul’s immortality is the teaching of Holy Scripture, which is self-authenticating because [it is] inspired of God” (Nemesius of Emesa, On the Nature of Man, Chapter 2, Of the Soul).

✔️“Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to scripture alone” (Theodoret of Cyrus, Dialogue 1).

✔️“All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by the Law, and Prophets, and Apostles, we receive, and acknowledge, and confess; and beyond these, we seek not to know anything. For it is impossible for us to say, or at all think anything concerning God, beyond what has been divinely declared by the divine oracles of the Old and New Testament” (Cyril of Alexandria, De Sacrosancta Trinitate 1).

✔️“The canonical scriptures alone are the rule (measure) of faith (Sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei)” (Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on John XXI. 24-25, paragraph 2656).

Written by James attebury
(Avoid sun disks)

What is Amillennialism?


Amillennialism is the name given to the belief that there will not be a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ. The people who hold to this belief are called amillennialists. The prefix “a-” in amillennialism means “no” or “not.” Hence, “amillennialism” means “no millennium.” This differs from the most widely accepted view called premillennialism (the view that Christ’s second coming will occur prior to His millennial kingdom and that the millennial kingdom is a literal 1,000-year reign) and from the less-widely accepted view called postmillennialism (the belief that Christ will return after Christians, not Christ Himself, have established the kingdom on this earth).

However, in fairness to amillennialists, they do not believe that there is no millennium at all. They just do not believe in a literal millennium—a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth. Instead, they believe that Christ is now sitting on the throne of David and that this present church age is the kingdom over which Christ reigns. There is no doubt that Christ is now sitting on a throne, but this does not mean that it is what the Bible refers to as the throne of David. There is no doubt that Christ now rules, for He is God. Yet this does not mean He is ruling over the millennial kingdom.

In order for God to keep His promises to Israel and His covenant with David (2 Samuel 7:8-16, 23:5; Psalm 89:3-4), there must be a literal, physical kingdom on this earth. To doubt this is to call into question God’s desire and/or ability to keep His promises, and this opens up a host of other theological problems. For example, if God would renege on His promises to Israel after proclaiming those promises to be “everlasting,” how could we be sure of anything He promises, including the promises of salvation to believers in the Lord Jesus? The only solution is to take Him at His word and understand that His promises will be literally fulfilled.

Clear biblical indications that the kingdom will be a literal, earthly kingdom are:

1) Christ’s feet will actually touch the Mount of Olives prior to the establishment of His kingdom (Zechariah 14:4, 9);

2) During the kingdom, the Messiah will execute justice and judgment on the earth (Jeremiah 23:5-8);

3) The kingdom is described as being under heaven (Daniel 7:13-14, 27);

4) The prophets foretold of dramatic earthly changes during the kingdom (Acts 3:21; Isaiah 35:1-2, 11:6-9, 29:18, 65:20-22; Ezekiel 47:1-12; Amos 9:11-15); and

5) The chronological order of events in Revelation indicates the existence of an earthly kingdom prior to the conclusion of world history (Revelation 20).

The amillennial view comes from using one method of interpretation for unfulfilled prophecy and another method for non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy. Non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy are interpreted literally or normally. But, according to the amillennialist, unfulfilled prophecy is to be interpreted spiritually, or non-literally. Those who hold to amillennialism believe that a “spiritual” reading of unfulfilled prophecy is the normal reading of the texts. This is called using a dual hermeneutic. (Hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation.) The amillennialist assumes that most, or all, unfulfilled prophecy is written in symbolic, figurative, spiritual language. Therefore, the amillennialist will assign different meanings to those parts of Scripture instead of the normal, contextual meanings of those words.

The problem with interpreting unfulfilled prophecy in this manner is that this allows for a wide range of meanings. Unless you interpret Scripture in the normal sense, there will not be one meaning. Yet God, the ultimate author of all of Scripture, did have one specific meaning in mind when He inspired the human authors to write. Though there may be many life applications in a passage of Scripture, there is only one meaning, and that meaning is what God intended it to mean. Also, the fact that fulfilled prophecy was fulfilled literally is the best reason of all for assuming that unfulfilled prophecy will also be literally fulfilled. The prophecies concerning Christ’s first coming were all fulfilled literally. Therefore, prophecies concerning Christ’s second coming should also be expected to be fulfilled literally. For these reasons, an allegorical interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy should be rejected and a literal or normal interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy should be adopted. Amillennialism fails in that it uses inconsistent hermeneutics, namely, interpreting unfulfilled prophecy differently from fulfilled prophecy.
Article source: Got Questions

Was St. Peter the First Pope?

 
     Catholic tradition teaches that while Christ is in Heaven, the Pope is the appointed head of the church on earth. However, the Bible never mentions anyone being the head of the church except Jesus Christ Himself (Eph. 5:23).
 
     In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
 
     According to the Catholic Church, this is where Jesus appointed Peter to be the first Pope, the earthly head of the church. That is, the Catholics teach that "this rock" is a reference to Peter. The Scriptures are quite clear in stating that the Rock is Jesus Christ and no one else. In fact, Peter himself testifies of this truth when he calls Jesus the "chief cornerstone" in I Peter 2:6. Paul tells us in I Corinthians 3:11 that Jesus Christ is the "foundation". He then says in I Corinthians 10:4 that Jesus Christ is the "Rock". The reader might also give some consideration to the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 32:29-31. The "rock" in Scripture is the Lord Jesus Christ, not Peter.
 
     Catholics argue that Peter is the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 because the word "Peter" is from the Greek word "petros", meaning “a piece of rock” or "a stone". However, the word "rock" in Matthew 16:18 is from the word "petra", which is a "mass of rock", like a large slab, not a small stone. Jesus Christ is the foundation (I Cor. 3:11), the perfect match for the "rock" ("petra") of Matthew 16:18. Christ is clearly the Rock in Scripture (II Sam. 22:32, Psa. 40:2, 42:9, 89:26, 92:15, 94:22, Acts 4:11-12).
 
     As for Peter being the first Pope, the serious Bible student should note the following facts:
 
1. The word "Pope" is never mentioned once in God's word.
2. Peter was married (Mat. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5), while the Popes are not.
3. Peter refused to allow others to bow down to him (Acts 10:25-26), but the Popes allow such practices.
4. Peter didn't think very highly of tradition (I Pet. 1:18), yet tradition is a major authority in the Catholic Church.
5. Peter believed in waiting for the "crown of glory" (I Pet. 5:4), while all Popes believe in wearing a crown now.
6. If Peter was the Pope in Rome, as the Catholics teach, then why did Paul not mention him in his letter to the Romans? In Romans chapter 16, Paul gives the names of over twenty church members, yet he fails to mention Peter. How could this have happened if Peter was the Pope in Rome?
7. If Peter was the head of the church, why did Paul have to set him straight on doctrine in Galatians 2:11?
8. If Peter was the Pope, then why didn't he say so in his epistles? He simply labeled himself "an apostle of Jesus Christ" (I Pet. 1:1) and nothing more.
9. Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. Why would "the Pope" write less?
10. Paul spoke of Peter, James, and John (not just Peter) being pillars in the church (Gal. 2:9). Peter is never magnified above the other Apostles.
11. Don't forget that it was Peter who denied the Lord Jesus Christ three times in one night (Mat. 26:69-75). Does this sound like something that would be done by the head of the church?
12. The Catholics believe that Peter was the first Pope in Rome, but the New Testament never speaks of Peter being anywhere near Rome.
 
     The Bible never even hints of Peter being a Pope, or of any popes at all! This whole doctrine is hellish Roman Catholic tradition, having been concocted for the purpose of lording over the common people of the church.
 
". . . Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Rev. 18:4)