Subscribe to this man's channel by clicking on the link below. ru-vid.com/show-UCvrrlGPGPa-LW50sGplQ9sA Article 7: The Sufficiency of Scripture We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it. For since the entire manner of service which God requires of us is described in it at great length, no one- even an apostle or an angel from heaven, as Paul says-2 ought to teach other than what the Holy Scriptures have already taught us. For since it is forbidden to add to the Word of God, or take anything away from it,3 it is plainly demonstrated that the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects. Therefore we must not consider human writings- no matter how holy their authors may have been- equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of times or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else. For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts everything that does not agree with this infallible rule, as we are taught to do by the apostles when they say, “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God,”4 and also, “Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching.”5 2Gal. 1:8 3Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19 41 John 4:1 52 John 10 www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/belgic-confession
@Aliquid Aliter I was answering the speaker's question, that's all. Perhaps you should learn to look, in this case listen, before you leap to the conclusion that the citation's authenticity was being called into question.
Scriptures are sufficient for all things providing your bible is the King James Version. Get the kjv ryrie study bible for correct end time’s understanding. Get the kjv life application as well if you want life application study
The Scripture is sufficient. No one said it was 'deficient.' Scripture has never been the sole rule of faith. Not among these or any Fathers. Protestants quote the Fathers out of the context both of the writers themselves, ignoring things like their communion with popes and other Fathers they reject as 'blatantly not christian,' and the context which is that they were Catholic and self-described as part of the Catholic Church. What the Fathers mean by things like: "These [Scriptural books] 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.’" Is that only Scripture is divinely inspired words relating doctrine. Protestants would interpret this to mean Athanasius taught Sola Scriptura. And yet he also wrote; "But, beyond these sayings [of Scripture], let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached and the Fathers kept. (_To Serapion_ 1:28, after citing passages about the deity of the Holy Ghost) But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, *who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down,* and *receiving them as the traditions of men,* err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power. (_Festal Letter_ 2:6) But since they allege the divine oracles [Scripture] and force on them a *misinterpretation, according to their private sense,* it becomes necessary *to meet them just so far as to vindicate* these passages, *and to show that they bear an orthodox sense,* and that our opponents are *in error* ... (_Discourse Against the Arians_ 1:37) "how many *Fathers* can ye assign to your phrases [i.e. Arian interpretations of Scripture]?" (_De Decretis_ 27) The Fathers didn't view Scripture and tradition as two opposing authorities, but that tradition referred to the handed on interpretation and faith in light of which alone Scripture was interpreted in an orthodox manner. St. Athanasius is the perfect example of that. What about Gregory of Nyssa? Didn't he teach Sola Scriptura? "Let our author, then, show this to begin with, that it is in vain that the Church has believed that the Only-begotten Son truly exists, not adopted by a Father falsely so called, but existing according to nature, by generation from Him Who is, not alienated from the essence of Him that begat Him. But so long as his primary proposition remains unproved, it is idle to dwell on those which are secondary. And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: *for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them*." (_Against Eunomius_, Book IV, 6) The Fathers are the enemy of Protestantism, inasmuch as they are the enemy of novelty and innovation of the faith. Just drop trying to make them fit Protestantism already.
I have no problem with the fathers appealing to tradition, I don't think you know what we believe, Scripture is final authority since that alone is infallible but we can and do appeal to other authorities such as creeds, councils and fathers quotes but it must be tested to Scripture.
@@reformedcatholic457 but would you only agree with them when they adhere to your personal interpretation or your traditions held beliefs? If there is a near unanimous acceptance of real presence and baptismal regeneration view would that sway you? It seems you’re only saying church documents are useful insofar as they agree with what you already believe the Scriptures are saying. As soon as the church believes something you don’t interpret the Scriptures to say, you can go on your own.
@@Mr.Anglo1095 "but would you only agree with them when they adhere to your personal interpretation or your traditions held beliefs?" Well, in some sense we all have to make a judgement whether they adhere to our personal interpretation of our traditional beliefs. Like in your view you guys would quote the fathers to support transubstantiation, the papacy, purgatory etc.. but the Eastern Orthodox would disagree with you on that, it's traditional beliefs against traditional beliefs. We all say we don't want to be anachronistic in quoting the fathers and saying they taught what we believe, it's possible they may not have believed it. "If there is a near unanimous acceptance of real presence and baptismal regeneration view would that sway you?" You probably think I'm a Baptist which you may have debated many in the past, but I'm not. I'm Reformed Anglican, wanting to continue the catholic tradition to which the reformers wanted to do. I do hold the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, I hold to a mystical view, I'm not sure how Christ is present but He is, Scripture doesn't go into detail, so I choose not to describe it in detail. I don't have anything against baptismal regeneration, but I wouldn't exactly hold to the view, I do believe baptism washes away sin and unites us to Christ but regeneration may not occur at the moment of baptism but rather it can happen before, during or after baptism. "It seems you’re only saying church documents are useful insofar as they agree with what you already believe the Scriptures are saying. As soon as the church believes something you don’t interpret the Scriptures to say, you can go on your own." My beliefs would be tested by the fallible authorities within church history, of course the ultimate question is whether it's taught within Scripture. Do all the fathers agree that Scripture teaches purgatory? It's not as convincing as you have mentioned they all basically agree with the two sacraments (not everyone, but majority), especially in the Greek fathers they barely touch on the topic, which I think is interesting.
@@reformedcatholic457 at this point I also consider myself a Reformed Anglican. We’re actually friends on Facebook lol. I went from a hardcore presby that believed Catholics go to hell to a much more gracious Anglican. Almost two years ago I officially changed my position to a Reformed Anglican. And now I’m just trying to wrestle with these things because they’re extremely difficult. I have a lot of contentions with the Catholic Church, but there are a lot of questions I don’t have sustainable answers for as a Protestant. I understand your point that everyone has to come to a personal conclusion. I think there is a difference between Catholics and Protestants in how they interpret history. Protestants use church history to show that their beliefs are consistent with church history, but ultimately it’s irrelevant because their interpretation could be wrong and it comes down to someone’s personal interpretation. They don’t carry any authority in of themselves. For example with the WCF, many Presbyterians will use it to argue for their position, but its irrelevant if you disagree with their fallible interpretation. If an early church Christian says something contrary to a particular Protestant view, it doesn’t need to be explained. We can just disagree with their interpretation because no interpretation (even our own) is infallible. It seems that an infallible source doesn’t help much for establishing dogmatic teaching if there isn’t an infallible interpretation for it. Catholics also use church history to show that church history is consistent with their position. They do use it similarly in some way, but personal interpretation is irrelevant. They use church history the same way Protestants use history to validate the Bible. While with certain doctrines it won’t look all that different, but when it comes to Catholic distinctives (the magisterium) it is to demonstrate why the magisterium is valid and others should trust their dogma. Similar to the way Protestants demonstrate the validity of Scripture by showing that Christ was who He said He was. I agree, that no one can escape the need to use their own intellect to come to a conclusion (dang it). The difference is Protestants use church fathers to show that their interpretation can be consistent with the earliest Christians, but Catholics use early Christians to show that they can trust the Catholic Churches authority to interpret. The most difficult questions for defending my own position have been about the canon and church history up to the reformation. How is it that sola Scriptura can be true if there is no canon in the New Testament? If we trust that the canon we have was given to us indirectly by God, we have to trust the (institutional) churches ability to infallibly interpret truth (if it’s not infallibly determined then there’s no way anyone could say the contents are infallible). The alternative that I’ve seen is to create a criteria that doesn’t come from Scripture or some sort of “burning of the bosom.” I don’t think either of those are sustainable. The other difficulty I’ve been faced with is the institutional church. It seems that the early church and forward (even if you don’t acknowledge the papacy), when Christ established a church He established a visible church made up of wheat and tares. At some point there had to be a great apostasy that justified leaving the institutional church that Christ set up. What outside authority would there be to do that? Why would Luther, Calvin, or Cranmer’s interpretation usurp the church that Christ established? It seems that if Christ established a visible church, you necessarily have either the papacy or Eastern Orthodoxy. Both Catholics and Protestants agree that Scripture is infallible and can’t be contradicted, but interpretation isn’t always so easy, hence the thousands of Protestant denominations that disagree on many essential issues. Another related issue is the minimum of 1,000 years where the visible church was led astray. The papacy was recognized as the first of the patriarchs in importance by 500 at the latest. Even most Eastern Orthodox recognize this, they just believe they had the authority to leave because they made decisions without consensus. But either way you have Christ’s church primarily recognizing authority of the bishops to interpret infallibly with consensus (ecumenical councils at the very least). If we’re right, that means that for 1,000 years minimum, the church had major doctrines wrong. Admittedly, I think when the best representation of Catholics explains justification, it isn’t that much different from certain Anglicans. When Protestants try and prove faith alone from the fathers it doesn’t seem difficult, but every quote I’ve seen can be perfectly explained from the Catholic view until Anselm. I think that’s also true of the authority of Scripture. The dominant view of most Catholics is a material sufficiency view, but the Church is the only one that has the ability to infallibly interpret. With that view I also don’t think I’ve seen a quote from the early church that doesn’t allow for that possibility. I’m not trying to argue. I truly want to be where Jesus wants me. It’s terrifying because I know the ramifications are tremendous. I wish I didn’t have to trust my own mind, but alas here I am. I know this is long winded, but it’s just not easy to lay out in a few sentences.
