[
Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]
The Church has never held Sola Scriptura to be true. Indeed, as you have see, the Bible itself says that there are other authoritative sources of information about God.
If you are talking about the Roman Catholic Church they did not declare that the revelation of God was not contained solely in Scriptures until the Council of Trent in the 16th century, during the reformation.
This view promoted at the Council of Trent contradicted the beliefs and practices of the Early Church. The Early Church held to the principle of sola Scripture. The early church believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced then the doctrine was to be rejected.
The early church fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus all taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. Their sole defense was their appeal to the authority of Scripture. Apologists such as Justin Martyr and Athenagoras appeal was also based on the authority of Scripture. There is no appeal in any of these writings to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.
Irenaeus and Tertullian held to sola Scriptura. Irenaeus stated the following about how the Scriptures should be the ground pillar of our faith.
"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." Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Vol. 1, Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414
Tradition, when referring to oral proclamation such as preaching or teaching, was viewed primarily as the oral presentation of Scriptural truth, or the codifying of biblical truth into creedal expression. There is no appeal in the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian to a Tradition on issues of doctrine that are not found in Scripture.
Rather, these men had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. Irenaeus and Tertullian rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine. Church historian, Ellen Flessman-van Leer affirms this fact:
"For Tertullian, Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content… For Irenaeus, the Church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought… If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is."
Ellen Flessman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953) pp. 184, 133, 144.
The Bible was the ultimate authority for the Church of the Early Church . It was materially sufficient, and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth. As J.N.D. Kelly has pointed out:
"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".
J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 42, 46
Heiko Oberman comments about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church:
"Scripture and tradition were for the Early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma, which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition".
Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1963), p. 366.
And like I said "The Roman Catholic Church exchanged the authority of Scripture of the authority of religious tradition.
Since the Bible was compiled by men, depending on tradition, it would be impossible to separate the two. Two sides of one thing.
Why didn't you just say that you believed in higher criticism when I asked. So that means that you do not believe the Bible when it states:
"For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:21
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," 2 Timothy 3:16
"And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual." 1 Cor. 2:13
"Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation." 2 Peter 1:20
"If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord" 1 Cor. 14:37
I have more but you get the idea. If you do not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God there is no way for you to prove that I am right or wrong. Your belief system is just like all the other cults that there are that believe the Bible plus. In the case of the Mormans, it is the Bible plus the book of Morman. In the case of the Jehovah's witnesses, it is the Bible plus the parts that they rewrote. Muslims believe the parts of the Bible and the Koran. You seem to be saying that you believe in parts of the bible and Scientific Theory. The capitalization was intentional.
We are closer in time to the inventor of Sola Scriptura than we are to The apostles. And as you have seen, the Bible itself rules out Sola Scriptura.
As clearly shown above the Bible rules out everything but Sola Scriptura and you have also learned how Sola Scriptura was used exclusively used by the Early Church against heresy. You have also learned that there is no authority for you to appeal to say that I am incorrect in my beliefs because you believe the bible plus other sources. Who is to say which extra-Biblical source is true and does it have more authority than the Bible as you seem to think human reason does.
People can reason through all kinds of things like stealing cars, adultery, fornication, homosexuality. So which is true the Bible or human reason?
Augustine never denied Romans 1:19-20 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
Since scripture itself says that there are other sources of understanding about God, it produces an interesting problem. If you believe Sola Scriptura, you cannot consistently believe Sola Scriptura.
Augustine could have believed in an eternal universe, but he did not and he would not. Because he believed that, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows.
The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion.
Augustine of Hippo, “Reply to Faustus the Manichæan,” translated by Richard Stothert, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume IV: St. Augustine: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists, edited by Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 180
Augustine believed in the supremacy of Scripture. In fact, according to Augustine (since you like him so much), we are not even allowed to say that the author is wrong or that the text is faulty.
And he says that where scripture does not definitively state one or another things, we should always be ready to change our opinions when new evidence is found.
Creation is not one of these things. Creation is spoken of in Scripture.
He opposed an eternal universe, because the main pagan groups in Rome believed in an eternal universe, while Christians believed in a moment of creation.
No Augustne said, "If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself."
He knew God created the universe in an instant and that the Universe was not eternal, because he believed in the Supremacy of Scripture.
Augustine would actually say that your belief that Genesis is an allegory would be adding to Scripture.
"Allegories in the Bible are always explained. Like for example John 15 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me."
another example would be the parable of the tenants in Matthew 21
33 “Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 34 When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.
35 “The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36 Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37 Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.
38 “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”
41 “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”
42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
“‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’[a]?
43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”
45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them. 46 They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.
There is no such indication that Genesis is an allegory. What is your evidence from Scripture that Genesis is an allegory?
