X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: QuickMail/SMTP interface.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:29:38 EDT
From:         Leo W <Leo_W@QM.CIRCA.UFL.EDU>
Subject:      Re>Clement & Sola Scriptura

Eric Ewanco wrote:
"You are assuming that he is speaking of Scripture alone, I am not so
sure.  For why would he mention "the Lord" when he also mentioned the
Gospel, except to refer to oral teachings?  And the prophets -- does
this not include the Christian prophets, who were quite active for
several hundred years in prophesying and revealing divine truths?  Does
the mention of the "blessed apostles" not mean not only epistles written
by them, but their teachings handed down?"

Of course, one should read the small portions I quoted as parts of a great
whole, which context alone would truly guide the reader in answering Eric's
questions above.  I was merely trying to show several clear passages from a
very early church father that explicitly stated what I have observed in the
early writings (up to Clement of Alexandria).  Let me state only that Clement's
works speak for themselves and answer Eric's questions with "Sola Scriptura."

For example, take the earliest writing, Clement of Rome's (bishop) first
epistle to the Corinthian church.  Clement raised several issues/topics in his
letter, and he justified almost every point of his teachings just like any good
fundamentalist today would -- by referring only to Scripture and never to
so-called oral teachings.  The only Tradition Clement of Rome refers to in
order to establish any points of faith is what he quotes from the Bible.  Those
points he mentions, which are not at issue but which are mentioned only in
passing, he does not justify by any means at all.  But in every case and by
every very early church father, oral teachings are never quoted to definitively
support any article of faith in their writings -- they always quote the Bible
exclusively, and sometimes exhaustively.  Just as Clement of Alexandria taught
those under his discipleship, the very early church fathers compared Scripture
with Scripture to establish the meaning and to explain the sense of any
passage.  They never quoted oral teachings to do so.

Eric likes to quote a portion of Irenaeous' "Against Heresies" in support of
his oral teachings theory, but all one needs to do is read the entire series
that comprise this great work to see the Tradition Irenaeous passes down from
the Apostles and even Christ Himself -- Sola Scriptura when establishing every
point of faith.

I believe there is a reason for this Sola Scriptura tradition in the very early
churches.

Irenaious' work "Against Heresies" is an undeniable witness to the fantastic
heresies that had developed, movements with unbelievably wild doctrines which
called themselves Christians during a time of persecution against Christians.
Among these groups' leaders were men who had been taught by the Apostles
themselves (and some who had only claimed they had been), and who were able to
fashion a sort of New Age Christianity by combining a verse here with an oral
teaching there.  No matter how they did it, the fact that they had had contact
with the Apostles or the Apostle's disciples gave credence to the simple-minded
of the veracity of their teachings (it was fresh in their minds, it was
Apostolic truth not found in the Bible, etc.).

The reason Irenaeous used the Sola Scriptura method throughout his work
"Against Heresies" was that it was the only reliable and true method to use
against the false oral teachings which gave rise to the heresies.  True, as
Eric pointed out, Irenaeous does refer in a very general sense to tradition
which includes the Bible and does not exclude oral teachings, however
throughout his work he only quotes the written Tradition, the Bible.  This is
the Rock of Iranaeous' faith, the first principle and the only principle he
quotes in his work.  He never quotes a single oral teaching to definitively
establish a single point of faith in his fight against the heretics.  When push
came to shove in "Against Heresies," Iranaeous was a Bible-believing
fundamentalist.

None of these very early church fathers sought to establish any point of faith
from oral traditions.  None of them quoted any oral teachings in order to
interpret Scripture either, but they quoted many Scriptures together and
compared spiritual things with spiritual.  This cannot be denied by the
unbiased reader.  The weight of the writings is 99.9% on one side of the
balance.

The snippets that Eric and I post cannot truthfully resolve this issue.  Only
by reading the whole can one get the whole truth, and pray to get it as
uncolored as possible through our denominational/sectarian lenses.

And one final postscript....

Eric wrote:  "And the prophets -- does
this not include the Christian prophets, who were quite active for
several hundred years in prophesying and revealing divine truths?"

I was reading a book recently and it's RC author stated that the official
teaching of the RCC is that divine revelation ceased with the deaths of the
Apostles.  This author tried to make the case that certain doctrines or
practices which were not found in the Bible, were also not later divine
revelations but were further developments of pre-existing Apostolic Traditions
in response to changing needs and times.  He gave as an example the Immaculate
Conception of Mary, which although not Biblical and not found in the very early
church writings, was a further development, by the infallible teaching
authority, of Christ's Biblical sinless birth.

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Leo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU