Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryNewman would reply that if you're unwilling to listen to the Apostles' successors, you wouldn't have listened to the Apostles either. At least we can agree that he was indeed a critic of sola scriptura. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And Newman would be flat wrong, as well as be misunderstanding the whole concept of sola scriptura. If the apostles' successors didn't stay true to the original apostles' witness, but instead began to innovate, then they shouldn't be listened to. Because you ARE listening to the original apostles.

And Newman being a critic of sola scriptura was never in doubt. That was purely your miscomprehension. I'm glad you finally got it straightened out.

---

Your back-pedaling is a lot to keep up with sometimes...but glad we agree.

---

What am I back pedaling on? Are you lying again to save face?

---

My understanding of your argument was that, according to John Henry Newman, the early church practiced sola scriptura. I apologize if I misread.

---

So how did I back pedal from that? You never make sense.

---

Are you still maintaining that Newman believed that?

---

Of course. Can you not just answer my question? Where did I backpedal from that?

---

So you initially claimed that Newman supported sola scriptura, but now you're saying he opposed it despite believing it was the clear practice of the early church. Interesting theory...back-pedaling straight into a dead end, it would seem.

---

Man, you are COMPLETELY confused.

---

I don't know who wouldn't be at this point. Anyway, Newman emphatically doesn't support your position.

Next topic: is the pope Catholic?

---

Someone here called me "Mr. Sola scriptura".

Looks like I'm in great company, no?
********************************************************************

Do you honestly see me arguing that Newman himself held to sola scriptura?

---

It certainly appears so, especially after the whole Augustine debate.

---

Then that explains all of it - you have comprehension problems. It really all does make sense now.

---

Or you were ambiguous. Although, to your credit, you did get a lot clearer after it was pointed out that you were using an outdated quote.

---

No, it means you couldn't read and comprehend Newman's words, and understand why I posted them. A clue would have been to look at the bolded parts. I CLEARLY was arguing that Newman conceded that sola scriptura was a belief and practice of the ancient church as he called it.

And there was no outdated quote. That's why you completely failed to offer up his "updated" position stating otherwise. Your "proof" was that you were "clairvoyant". This is just another example of you having to BS your way through another debate. I really do wonder, and sincerely ask you: why do you continue to believe in your beliefs that you have to continually BS your way through in defending them?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryNewman would reply that if you're unwilling to listen to the Apostles' successors, you wouldn't have listened to the Apostles either. At least we can agree that he was indeed a critic of sola scriptura. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And Newman would be flat wrong, as well as be misunderstanding the whole concept of sola scriptura. If the apostles' successors didn't stay true to the original apostles' witness, but instead began to innovate, then they shouldn't be listened to. Because you ARE listening to the original apostles.

And Newman being a critic of sola scriptura was never in doubt. That was purely your miscomprehension. I'm glad you finally got it straightened out.

---

Your back-pedaling is a lot to keep up with sometimes...but glad we agree.

---

What am I back pedaling on? Are you lying again to save face?

---

My understanding of your argument was that, according to John Henry Newman, the early church practiced sola scriptura. I apologize if I misread.

---

So how did I back pedal from that? You never make sense.

---

Are you still maintaining that Newman believed that?

---

Of course. Can you not just answer my question? Where did I backpedal from that?

---

So you initially claimed that Newman supported sola scriptura, but now you're saying he opposed it despite believing it was the clear practice of the early church. Interesting theory...back-pedaling straight into a dead end, it would seem.

---

Man, you are COMPLETELY confused.

---

I don't know who wouldn't be at this point. Anyway, Newman emphatically doesn't support your position.

Next topic: is the pope Catholic?

---

Someone here called me "Mr. Sola scriptura".

Looks like I'm in great company, no?
********************************************************************

Do you honestly see me arguing that Newman himself held to sola scriptura?

---

It certainly appears so, especially after the whole Augustine debate.

---

Then that explains all of it - you have comprehension problems. It really all does make sense now.

---

Or you were ambiguous. Although, to your credit, you did get a lot clearer after it was pointed out that you were using an outdated quote.

---

No, it means you couldn't read and comprehend Newman's words, and understand why I posted them. A clue would have been to look at the bolded parts. I CLEARLY was arguing that Newman conceded that sola scriptura was a belief and practice of the ancient church as he called it.

And there was no outdated quote. That's why you completely failed to offer up his "updated" position stating otherwise. Your "proof" was that you were "clairvoyant". This is just another example of you having to BS your way through another debate. I really do wonder, and sincerely ask you: why do you continue to believe in your beliefs that you have to continually BS your way through in defending them?

---

"Clairvoyant" was a sarcastic way of saying I can read. And this is why, when you asked for his updated position, I asked to what end? It was offered, and you heard not a word of it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryNewman would reply that if you're unwilling to listen to the Apostles' successors, you wouldn't have listened to the Apostles either. At least we can agree that he was indeed a critic of sola scriptura. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And Newman would be flat wrong, as well as be misunderstanding the whole concept of sola scriptura. If the apostles' successors didn't stay true to the original apostles' witness, but instead began to innovate, then they shouldn't be listened to. Because you ARE listening to the original apostles.

And Newman being a critic of sola scriptura was never in doubt. That was purely your miscomprehension. I'm glad you finally got it straightened out.

---

Your back-pedaling is a lot to keep up with sometimes...but glad we agree.

---

What am I back pedaling on? Are you lying again to save face?

---

My understanding of your argument was that, according to John Henry Newman, the early church practiced sola scriptura. I apologize if I misread.

---

So how did I back pedal from that? You never make sense.

---

Are you still maintaining that Newman believed that?

---

Of course. Can you not just answer my question? Where did I backpedal from that?

---

So you initially claimed that Newman supported sola scriptura, but now you're saying he opposed it despite believing it was the clear practice of the early church. Interesting theory...back-pedaling straight into a dead end, it would seem.

---

Man, you are COMPLETELY confused.

---

I don't know who wouldn't be at this point. Anyway, Newman emphatically doesn't support your position.

Next topic: is the pope Catholic?

---

Someone here called me "Mr. Sola scriptura".

Looks like I'm in great company, no?
********************************************************************

Do you honestly see me arguing that Newman himself held to sola scriptura?

---

It certainly appears so, especially after the whole Augustine debate.

---

Then that explains all of it - you have comprehension problems. It really all does make sense now.

---

Or you were ambiguous. Although, to your credit, you did get a lot clearer after it was pointed out that you were using an outdated quote.

---

No, it means you couldn't read and comprehend Newman's words, and understand why I posted them. A clue would have been to look at the bolded parts. I CLEARLY was arguing that Newman conceded that sola scriptura was a belief and practice of the ancient church as he called it.

And there was no outdated quote. That's why you completely failed to offer up his "updated" position stating otherwise. Your "proof" was that you were "clairvoyant". This is just another example of you having to BS your way through another debate. I really do wonder, and sincerely ask you: why do you continue to believe in your beliefs that you have to continually BS your way through in defending them?

---

"Clairvoyant" was a sarcastic way of saying I can read. And this is why, when you asked for his updated position, I asked to what end? It was offered, and you heard not a word of it.

---

No, what was noticed by everyone was your clear dodge.

As of yet, we still have not seen your update. That's what really counts. Keep arguing if you will. You can't escape this. I remind you, that you initially miscomprehended my position, so the "update" you may have offered was to your miscomprension, not to my (or Newman's) actual point.

Once again:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039

I also have to add.. notice that when I asked you for evidence that Newman changed his view (which you had asserted) from that in the quote I gave, you provided evidence where Newman himself disagreed with sola scriptura - indicating that you miscomprehended Newman's initial statement to begin with, believing that Newman had stated his position on sola scriptura rather than that of the church fathers he was speaking of. And this miscomprehension spurred the confusing exchange that followed, and snowballed from there. This goes to show the importance of comprehending things correctly in the beginning.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Once again:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039

---

Now point out where he changed his position on the early church fathers and their belief and practice of sola scriptura.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Once again:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039

---

Now point out where he changed his position on the early church fathers and their belief and practice of sola scriptura.

---

It's worth distinguishing between Newman's historical claims and his opinions.

In the letter you quoted, he wrote of the Church Fathers, "They never said 'It must be so and so, because St. Cyprian says this, St. Clement explains in his third book of the "Paedagogue," &c.' and with reason; for the Fathers are a witness only as one voice, not in individual instances, or, much less, isolated passages, but every word of Scripture is inspired and available."

He was exactly right. Scripture is unique in that sense, and Catholics believe the same thing.

But Newman eventually realized that Scripture's authority is inseparable from that of the Church. If he ever considered the Bible an "exclusive rule" in the sense that an authentic Christianity could be formed from Scripture without reference to Church authority, he expressly rejected that view in the quoted passages. And the Church Fathers absolutely would have agreed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Once again:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039

---

Now point out where he changed his position on the early church fathers and their belief and practice of sola scriptura.

---

It's worth distinguishing between Newman's historical claims and his opinions.

In the letter you quoted, he wrote of the Church Fathers, "They never said 'It must be so and so, because St. Cyprian says this, St. Clement explains in his third book of the "Paedagogue," &c.' and with reason; for the Fathers are a witness only as one voice, not in individual instances, or, much less, isolated passages, but every word of Scripture is inspired and available."

He was exactly right. Scripture is unique in that sense, and Catholics believe the same thing.

But Newman eventually realized that Scripture's authority is inseparable from that of the Church. If he ever considered the Bible an "exclusive rule" in the sense that an authentic Christianity could be formed from Scripture without reference to Church authority, he expressly rejected that view in the quoted passages. And the Church Fathers absolutely would have agreed.

---

...which negates his clearly expressed view that the ancients exercised sola scriptura.... how?

You know, it's so much easier to just say "yeah, Newman seemed to have expressed that" like any honest, objective, rational person would. No one will think any less of you if you do, I promise.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Once again:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039

---

Now point out where he changed his position on the early church fathers and their belief and practice of sola scriptura.

---

It's worth distinguishing between Newman's historical claims and his opinions.

In the letter you quoted, he wrote of the Church Fathers, "They never said 'It must be so and so, because St. Cyprian says this, St. Clement explains in his third book of the "Paedagogue," &c.' and with reason; for the Fathers are a witness only as one voice, not in individual instances, or, much less, isolated passages, but every word of Scripture is inspired and available."

He was exactly right. Scripture is unique in that sense, and Catholics believe the same thing.

But Newman eventually realized that Scripture's authority is inseparable from that of the Church. If he ever considered the Bible an "exclusive rule" in the sense that an authentic Christianity could be formed from Scripture without reference to Church authority, he expressly rejected that view in the quoted passages. And the Church Fathers absolutely would have agreed.

---

...which negates his clearly expressed view that the ancients exercised sola scriptura.... how?

You know, it's so much easier to just say "yeah, Newman seemed to have expressed that" like any honest, objective, rational person would. No one will think any less of you if you do, I promise.

---

As a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Once again:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039

---

Now point out where he changed his position on the early church fathers and their belief and practice of sola scriptura.

---

It's worth distinguishing between Newman's historical claims and his opinions.

In the letter you quoted, he wrote of the Church Fathers, "They never said 'It must be so and so, because St. Cyprian says this, St. Clement explains in his third book of the "Paedagogue," &c.' and with reason; for the Fathers are a witness only as one voice, not in individual instances, or, much less, isolated passages, but every word of Scripture is inspired and available."

He was exactly right. Scripture is unique in that sense, and Catholics believe the same thing.

But Newman eventually realized that Scripture's authority is inseparable from that of the Church. If he ever considered the Bible an "exclusive rule" in the sense that an authentic Christianity could be formed from Scripture without reference to Church authority, he expressly rejected that view in the quoted passages. And the Church Fathers absolutely would have agreed.

---

...which negates his clearly expressed view that the ancients exercised sola scriptura.... how?

You know, it's so much easier to just say "yeah, Newman seemed to have expressed that" like any honest, objective, rational person would. No one will think any less of you if you do, I promise.

---

As a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture.

---

And Newman acknowledged that the ancient church fathers ultimately appealed to Scripture alone as the final authority, not to tradition.

Seriously, it's better to just concede that, and at least have people believe you are capable of being honest, objective, and rational.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Once again:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039

---

Now point out where he changed his position on the early church fathers and their belief and practice of sola scriptura.

---

It's worth distinguishing between Newman's historical claims and his opinions.

In the letter you quoted, he wrote of the Church Fathers, "They never said 'It must be so and so, because St. Cyprian says this, St. Clement explains in his third book of the "Paedagogue," &c.' and with reason; for the Fathers are a witness only as one voice, not in individual instances, or, much less, isolated passages, but every word of Scripture is inspired and available."

He was exactly right. Scripture is unique in that sense, and Catholics believe the same thing.

But Newman eventually realized that Scripture's authority is inseparable from that of the Church. If he ever considered the Bible an "exclusive rule" in the sense that an authentic Christianity could be formed from Scripture without reference to Church authority, he expressly rejected that view in the quoted passages. And the Church Fathers absolutely would have agreed.

---

...which negates his clearly expressed view that the ancients exercised sola scriptura.... how?

You know, it's so much easier to just say "yeah, Newman seemed to have expressed that" like any honest, objective, rational person would. No one will think any less of you if you do, I promise.

---

As a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture.

---

And Newman acknowledged that the ancient church fathers ultimately appealed to Scripture alone as the final authority, not to tradition.

Seriously, it's better to just concede that, and at least have people believe you are capable of being honest, objective, and rational.

---

He changed his mind:

Quote:

---

The recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of arguing against Arianism. It is not his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters, a tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the ecclesiastical phronema, the writings of saints; these are enough for him. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received, and he transmits.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Once again:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039

---

Now point out where he changed his position on the early church fathers and their belief and practice of sola scriptura.

---

It's worth distinguishing between Newman's historical claims and his opinions.

In the letter you quoted, he wrote of the Church Fathers, "They never said 'It must be so and so, because St. Cyprian says this, St. Clement explains in his third book of the "Paedagogue," &c.' and with reason; for the Fathers are a witness only as one voice, not in individual instances, or, much less, isolated passages, but every word of Scripture is inspired and available."

He was exactly right. Scripture is unique in that sense, and Catholics believe the same thing.

But Newman eventually realized that Scripture's authority is inseparable from that of the Church. If he ever considered the Bible an "exclusive rule" in the sense that an authentic Christianity could be formed from Scripture without reference to Church authority, he expressly rejected that view in the quoted passages. And the Church Fathers absolutely would have agreed.

---

...which negates his clearly expressed view that the ancients exercised sola scriptura.... how?

You know, it's so much easier to just say "yeah, Newman seemed to have expressed that" like any honest, objective, rational person would. No one will think any less of you if you do, I promise.

---

As a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture.

---

And Newman acknowledged that the ancient church fathers ultimately appealed to Scripture alone as the final authority, not to tradition.

Seriously, it's better to just concede that, and at least have people believe you are capable of being honest, objective, and rational.

---

He changed his mind:

Quote:

---

The recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of arguing against Arianism. It is not his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters, a tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the ecclesiastical phronema, the writings of saints; these are enough for him. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received, and he transmits.

---

---

Newman is not saying that Athanasius didn't appeal to Scripture alone as the final authority here. He's talking about Athanasius' view on how Scripture should be intepreted; that is, by the traditional, orthodox understanding of it rather than by private interpretation, as he said the Arians were doing.

The question of how one interprets Scripture is independent of the principle of sola scriptura. For instance, we disagree with your view on Mary's role in salvation as per your interpretation of the Anunciation story. You will argue that your interpretation has been the orthodox, traditional understanding since the beginning. Of course we will disagree with that analysis and say that you're simply coming to the wrong conclusion and interpreting that part of Scripture incorrectly - which you will say is our private intepretation. But what we don't say, is that you're violating sola scriptura, because you are still exegeting from Scripture, however incorrect your interpretation might be.

Therefore, Newman's view on the ancient fathers always appealing to Scripture as the final authority and sole rule of faith is not at all at odds with what he's saying here.

I've made this same argument here a few times. We're going to win over Gen Z and Protestants. I Just had a young Protestant pastor visit my Orthodox Church a few weeks ago and wants to become a catechumen.

Beautiful refutation of Sola Scriptura, taken directly from the life and writings of St. Paul: pic.twitter.com/6Jtmk83bhf

— MrCasey (@MrCasey62) May 23, 2026

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Once again:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039

---

Now point out where he changed his position on the early church fathers and their belief and practice of sola scriptura.

---

It's worth distinguishing between Newman's historical claims and his opinions.

In the letter you quoted, he wrote of the Church Fathers, "They never said 'It must be so and so, because St. Cyprian says this, St. Clement explains in his third book of the "Paedagogue," &c.' and with reason; for the Fathers are a witness only as one voice, not in individual instances, or, much less, isolated passages, but every word of Scripture is inspired and available."

He was exactly right. Scripture is unique in that sense, and Catholics believe the same thing.

But Newman eventually realized that Scripture's authority is inseparable from that of the Church. If he ever considered the Bible an "exclusive rule" in the sense that an authentic Christianity could be formed from Scripture without reference to Church authority, he expressly rejected that view in the quoted passages. And the Church Fathers absolutely would have agreed.

---

...which negates his clearly expressed view that the ancients exercised sola scriptura.... how?

You know, it's so much easier to just say "yeah, Newman seemed to have expressed that" like any honest, objective, rational person would. No one will think any less of you if you do, I promise.

---

As a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture.

---

And Newman acknowledged that the ancient church fathers ultimately appealed to Scripture alone as the final authority, not to tradition.

Seriously, it's better to just concede that, and at least have people believe you are capable of being honest, objective, and rational.

---

He changed his mind:

Quote:

---

The recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of arguing against Arianism. It is not his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters, a tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the ecclesiastical phronema, the writings of saints; these are enough for him. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received, and he transmits.

---

---

Newman is not saying that Athanasius didn't appeal to Scripture alone as the final authority here. He's talking about Athanasius' view on how Scripture should be intepreted; that is, by the traditional, orthodox understanding of it rather than by private interpretation, as he said the Arians were doing.

The question of how one interprets Scripture is independent of the principle of sola scriptura. For instance, we disagree with your view on Mary's role in salvation as per your interpretation of the Anunciation story. You will argue that your interpretation has been the orthodox, traditional understanding since the beginning. Of course we will disagree with that analysis and say that you're simply coming to the wrong conclusion and interpreting that part of Scripture incorrectly - which you will say is our private intepretation. But what we don't say, is that you're violating sola scriptura, because you are still exegeting from Scripture, however incorrect your interpretation might be.

Therefore, Newman's view on the ancient fathers always appealing to Scripture as the final authority and sole rule of faith is not at all at odds with what he's saying here.

---

But according to Newman, the Church Fathers weren't simply exegeting Scripture. They were relying on a "substantive, independent, and authoritative" tradition to tell them what it meant. There's no way to square that with sola scriptura.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Once again:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039

---

Now point out where he changed his position on the early church fathers and their belief and practice of sola scriptura.

---

It's worth distinguishing between Newman's historical claims and his opinions.

In the letter you quoted, he wrote of the Church Fathers, "They never said 'It must be so and so, because St. Cyprian says this, St. Clement explains in his third book of the "Paedagogue," &c.' and with reason; for the Fathers are a witness only as one voice, not in individual instances, or, much less, isolated passages, but every word of Scripture is inspired and available."

He was exactly right. Scripture is unique in that sense, and Catholics believe the same thing.

But Newman eventually realized that Scripture's authority is inseparable from that of the Church. If he ever considered the Bible an "exclusive rule" in the sense that an authentic Christianity could be formed from Scripture without reference to Church authority, he expressly rejected that view in the quoted passages. And the Church Fathers absolutely would have agreed.

---

...which negates his clearly expressed view that the ancients exercised sola scriptura.... how?

You know, it's so much easier to just say "yeah, Newman seemed to have expressed that" like any honest, objective, rational person would. No one will think any less of you if you do, I promise.

---

As a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture.

---

And Newman acknowledged that the ancient church fathers ultimately appealed to Scripture alone as the final authority, not to tradition.

Seriously, it's better to just concede that, and at least have people believe you are capable of being honest, objective, and rational.

---

He changed his mind:

Quote:

---

The recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of arguing against Arianism. It is not his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters, a tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the ecclesiastical phronema, the writings of saints; these are enough for him. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received, and he transmits.

---

---

Newman is not saying that Athanasius didn't appeal to Scripture alone as the final authority here. He's talking about Athanasius' view on how Scripture should be intepreted; that is, by the traditional, orthodox understanding of it rather than by private interpretation, as he said the Arians were doing.

The question of how one interprets Scripture is independent of the principle of sola scriptura. For instance, we disagree with your view on Mary's role in salvation as per your interpretation of the Anunciation story. You will argue that your interpretation has been the orthodox, traditional understanding since the beginning. Of course we will disagree with that analysis and say that you're simply coming to the wrong conclusion and interpreting that part of Scripture incorrectly - which you will say is our private intepretation. But what we don't say, is that you're violating sola scriptura, because you are still exegeting from Scripture, however incorrect your interpretation might be.

Therefore, Newman's view on the ancient fathers always appealing to Scripture as the final authority and sole rule of faith is not at all at odds with what he's saying here.

---

But according to Newman, the Church Fathers weren't simply exegeting Scripture. They were relying on a "substantive, independent, and authoritative" tradition to tell them what it meant. There's no way to square that with sola scriptura.

---

"... to tell them what it meant."

He's saying they were exegeting Scripture, based on the traditional, orthodox understanding of its meaning, i.e. in the "Catholic sense" as he says. That's what he's referring to as the "Rule of Faith". He's making the distinction with what the Arians were doing, who were according to him, exegeting from a new, non-orthodox understanding based on their "private interpretation". Read his whole writing from which your quote came. What he's saying here is not contradicting what he said in the quote I gave. What he's addressing here is interpretive authority, not the source of authority, the subject of his other quote.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Once again:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039

---

Now point out where he changed his position on the early church fathers and their belief and practice of sola scriptura.

---

It's worth distinguishing between Newman's historical claims and his opinions.

In the letter you quoted, he wrote of the Church Fathers, "They never said 'It must be so and so, because St. Cyprian says this, St. Clement explains in his third book of the "Paedagogue," &c.' and with reason; for the Fathers are a witness only as one voice, not in individual instances, or, much less, isolated passages, but every word of Scripture is inspired and available."

He was exactly right. Scripture is unique in that sense, and Catholics believe the same thing.

But Newman eventually realized that Scripture's authority is inseparable from that of the Church. If he ever considered the Bible an "exclusive rule" in the sense that an authentic Christianity could be formed from Scripture without reference to Church authority, he expressly rejected that view in the quoted passages. And the Church Fathers absolutely would have agreed.

---

...which negates his clearly expressed view that the ancients exercised sola scriptura.... how?

You know, it's so much easier to just say "yeah, Newman seemed to have expressed that" like any honest, objective, rational person would. No one will think any less of you if you do, I promise.

---

As a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture.

---

And Newman acknowledged that the ancient church fathers ultimately appealed to Scripture alone as the final authority, not to tradition.

Seriously, it's better to just concede that, and at least have people believe you are capable of being honest, objective, and rational.

---

He changed his mind:

Quote:

---

The recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of arguing against Arianism. It is not his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters, a tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the ecclesiastical phronema, the writings of saints; these are enough for him. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received, and he transmits.

---

---

Newman is not saying that Athanasius didn't appeal to Scripture alone as the final authority here. He's talking about Athanasius' view on how Scripture should be intepreted; that is, by the traditional, orthodox understanding of it rather than by private interpretation, as he said the Arians were doing.

The question of how one interprets Scripture is independent of the principle of sola scriptura. For instance, we disagree with your view on Mary's role in salvation as per your interpretation of the Anunciation story. You will argue that your interpretation has been the orthodox, traditional understanding since the beginning. Of course we will disagree with that analysis and say that you're simply coming to the wrong conclusion and interpreting that part of Scripture incorrectly - which you will say is our private intepretation. But what we don't say, is that you're violating sola scriptura, because you are still exegeting from Scripture, however incorrect your interpretation might be.

Therefore, Newman's view on the ancient fathers always appealing to Scripture as the final authority and sole rule of faith is not at all at odds with what he's saying here.

---

But according to Newman, the Church Fathers weren't simply exegeting Scripture. They were relying on a "substantive, independent, and authoritative" tradition to tell them what it meant. There's no way to square that with sola scriptura.

---

"... to tell them what it meant."

He's saying they were exegeting Scripture, based on the traditional, orthodox understanding of its meaning, i.e. in the "Catholic sense" as he says.

---

Not just traditional and orthodox, but authoritative.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Once again:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039

---

Now point out where he changed his position on the early church fathers and their belief and practice of sola scriptura.

---

It's worth distinguishing between Newman's historical claims and his opinions.

In the letter you quoted, he wrote of the Church Fathers, "They never said 'It must be so and so, because St. Cyprian says this, St. Clement explains in his third book of the "Paedagogue," &c.' and with reason; for the Fathers are a witness only as one voice, not in individual instances, or, much less, isolated passages, but every word of Scripture is inspired and available."

He was exactly right. Scripture is unique in that sense, and Catholics believe the same thing.

But Newman eventually realized that Scripture's authority is inseparable from that of the Church. If he ever considered the Bible an "exclusive rule" in the sense that an authentic Christianity could be formed from Scripture without reference to Church authority, he expressly rejected that view in the quoted passages. And the Church Fathers absolutely would have agreed.

---

...which negates his clearly expressed view that the ancients exercised sola scriptura.... how?

You know, it's so much easier to just say "yeah, Newman seemed to have expressed that" like any honest, objective, rational person would. No one will think any less of you if you do, I promise.

---

As a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture.

---

And Newman acknowledged that the ancient church fathers ultimately appealed to Scripture alone as the final authority, not to tradition.

Seriously, it's better to just concede that, and at least have people believe you are capable of being honest, objective, and rational.

---

He changed his mind:

Quote:

---

The recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of arguing against Arianism. It is not his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters, a tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the ecclesiastical phronema, the writings of saints; these are enough for him. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received, and he transmits.

---

---

Newman is not saying that Athanasius didn't appeal to Scripture alone as the final authority here. He's talking about Athanasius' view on how Scripture should be intepreted; that is, by the traditional, orthodox understanding of it rather than by private interpretation, as he said the Arians were doing.

The question of how one interprets Scripture is independent of the principle of sola scriptura. For instance, we disagree with your view on Mary's role in salvation as per your interpretation of the Anunciation story. You will argue that your interpretation has been the orthodox, traditional understanding since the beginning. Of course we will disagree with that analysis and say that you're simply coming to the wrong conclusion and interpreting that part of Scripture incorrectly - which you will say is our private intepretation. But what we don't say, is that you're violating sola scriptura, because you are still exegeting from Scripture, however incorrect your interpretation might be.

Therefore, Newman's view on the ancient fathers always appealing to Scripture as the final authority and sole rule of faith is not at all at odds with what he's saying here.

---

But according to Newman, the Church Fathers weren't simply exegeting Scripture. They were relying on a "substantive, independent, and authoritative" tradition to tell them what it meant. There's no way to square that with sola scriptura.

---

"... to tell them what it meant."

He's saying they were exegeting Scripture, based on the traditional, orthodox understanding of its meaning, i.e. in the "Catholic sense" as he says.

---

Not just traditional and orthodox, but authoritative.

---

Because it's apostolic.

"He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Once again:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039

---

Now point out where he changed his position on the early church fathers and their belief and practice of sola scriptura.

---

It's worth distinguishing between Newman's historical claims and his opinions.

In the letter you quoted, he wrote of the Church Fathers, "They never said 'It must be so and so, because St. Cyprian says this, St. Clement explains in his third book of the "Paedagogue," &c.' and with reason; for the Fathers are a witness only as one voice, not in individual instances, or, much less, isolated passages, but every word of Scripture is inspired and available."

He was exactly right. Scripture is unique in that sense, and Catholics believe the same thing.

But Newman eventually realized that Scripture's authority is inseparable from that of the Church. If he ever considered the Bible an "exclusive rule" in the sense that an authentic Christianity could be formed from Scripture without reference to Church authority, he expressly rejected that view in the quoted passages. And the Church Fathers absolutely would have agreed.

---

...which negates his clearly expressed view that the ancients exercised sola scriptura.... how?

You know, it's so much easier to just say "yeah, Newman seemed to have expressed that" like any honest, objective, rational person would. No one will think any less of you if you do, I promise.

---

As a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture.

---

And Newman acknowledged that the ancient church fathers ultimately appealed to Scripture alone as the final authority, not to tradition.

Seriously, it's better to just concede that, and at least have people believe you are capable of being honest, objective, and rational.

---

He changed his mind:

Quote:

---

The recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of arguing against Arianism. It is not his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters, a tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the ecclesiastical phronema, the writings of saints; these are enough for him. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received, and he transmits.

---

---

Newman is not saying that Athanasius didn't appeal to Scripture alone as the final authority here. He's talking about Athanasius' view on how Scripture should be intepreted; that is, by the traditional, orthodox understanding of it rather than by private interpretation, as he said the Arians were doing.

The question of how one interprets Scripture is independent of the principle of sola scriptura. For instance, we disagree with your view on Mary's role in salvation as per your interpretation of the Anunciation story. You will argue that your interpretation has been the orthodox, traditional understanding since the beginning. Of course we will disagree with that analysis and say that you're simply coming to the wrong conclusion and interpreting that part of Scripture incorrectly - which you will say is our private intepretation. But what we don't say, is that you're violating sola scriptura, because you are still exegeting from Scripture, however incorrect your interpretation might be.

Therefore, Newman's view on the ancient fathers always appealing to Scripture as the final authority and sole rule of faith is not at all at odds with what he's saying here.

---

But according to Newman, the Church Fathers weren't simply exegeting Scripture. They were relying on a "substantive, independent, and authoritative" tradition to tell them what it meant. There's no way to square that with sola scriptura.

---

"... to tell them what it meant."

He's saying they were exegeting Scripture, based on the traditional, orthodox understanding of its meaning, i.e. in the "Catholic sense" as he says.

---

Not just traditional and orthodox, but authoritative.

---

Because it's apostolic.

"He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive."

---

Yep, and it is "carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church."

For those of us learned in the church fathers and the original text, we know that Hebrew has no way of expressing comparitives or superlatives. Therefore they would use idioms.

We would all certainly agree, whether a Catholic or someone who adheres to a descendant faith from Catholicism, that Eve was born without sin.

If Elizabeth explained in the sacred text "Blessed are you amongst women" in the Hebrew idiomatic way as we would certainly understand it, it makes clear that she is the most blessed of any woman, then, before and forever.

Hence…….

Well, that's certainly an opinion ...

Is Mary greater or lesser than angels?

Fre3dombear said:

---

Is Mary greater or lesser than angels?

---

No.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Is Mary greater or lesser than angels?

---

No.

---

Ehhhhhh. Cant be both.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Is Mary greater or lesser than angels?

---

No.

---

Ehhhhhh. Cant be both.

---

It's no less logical than your question.

Think about it.

Do protestant Christians believe in Original Sin?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Is Mary greater or lesser than angels?

---

No.

---

Ehhhhhh. Cant be both.

---

It's no less logical than your question.

Think about it.

---

Youre being lapped. Ponder more deeply.

CCC 410-411

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Your Is Mary greater or lesser than angels?

---

No.

---

Ehhhhhh. Cant be both.

---

It's no less logical than your question.

Think about it.

---

Youre being lapped. Ponder more deeply.

---

Nope, I'm not the one worshipping Mary and grasping desperately at excuses to do so.


Mary was a faithful servant of the Lord. If she were anything like you claim, Christ would have told us so.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Your Is Mary greater or lesser than angels?

---

No.

---

Ehhhhhh. Cant be both.

---

It's no less logical than your question.

Think about it.

---

Youre being lapped. Ponder more deeply.

---

Nope, I'm not the one worshipping Mary and grasping desperately at excuses to do so.


Mary was a faithful servant of the Lord. If she were anything like you claim, Christ would have told us so.

---

Lapped again

Nobody here worshipping Mary.

I know it's frustrating when forced to consider things the skinny jeans guy you pay never told you

Then youre met with texts and analyses that lived 150 generations before your founders of Calvin and Luther led so many astray from God's church.

But even Jews in Jesus' day saw and still didnt believe, so it happens.

You keep selling the same untrue claims.

Again, if Mary were what you claim, our Lord Jesus would have told us so.

Just cannot take your opinion in place of Jesus', sorry to hurt your feelings.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You keep selling the same untrue claims.

Again, if Mary were what you claim, our Lord Jesus would have told us so.

Just cannot take your opinion in place of Jesus', sorry to hurt your feelings.

---

It's literally right there in the text. Many have eyes and yet cannot see

Who is the woman in Revelation 12? Any guesses?

Let's build it up. It's ok if you dont know.

What is Mary that I claim?

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You keep selling the same untrue claims.

Again, if Mary were what you claim, our Lord Jesus would have told us so.

Just cannot take your opinion in place of Jesus', sorry to hurt your feelings.

---

It's literally right there in the text. Many have eyes and yet cannot see

Who is the woman in Revelation 12? Any guesses?

Let's build it up. It's ok if you dont know.

What is Mary that I claim?

---

** sigh **

Your whole argument is that we have to take your interpretation alone. The fact is Christ never made Mary what you claim, nor indeed did Peter, nor any of the Disciples.

Mary served the Lord, no one disputes that. And the Lord gave her great honor, but there is absolutely nothing to support claims that Mary was sinless, outranked angels, involved in our Salvation directly or any of that.

Christ was very clear, and His doctrine is sufficient. Jesus loved His mother Mary, but never prayed to her nor asked anyone else to do that.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You keep selling the same untrue claims.

Again, if Mary were what you claim, our Lord Jesus would have told us so.

Just cannot take your opinion in place of Jesus', sorry to hurt your feelings.

---

It's literally right there in the text. Many have eyes and yet cannot see

Who is the woman in Revelation 12? Any guesses?

Let's build it up. It's ok if you dont know.

What is Mary that I claim?

---

** sigh **

Your whole argument is that we have to take your interpretation alone. The fact is Christ never made Mary what you claim, nor indeed did Peter, nor any of the Disciples.

Mary served the Lord, no one disputes that. And the Lord gave her great honor, but there is absolutely nothing to support claims that Mary was sinless, outranked angels, involved in our Salvation directly or any of that.

Christ was very clear, and His doctrine is sufficient. Jesus loved His mother Mary, but never prayed to her nor asked anyone else to do that.

---

** sigh…with eye roll ***

We get it. Youve adopted a faith that arrived 150 generations after Christ

Mary is just like your mom. Just another woman. A filthy wretch that birthed God in human flesh. Lower than Eve even.

As is typical no Response to Revelation 12, as well, it neuters your belief system. Did Jesus say the trinity? Did Jesus say original Sin? protestant Christians dont believe in these things? This is what happens when you have no magisterium and you are your own pope. You wind up believing anything. And contradict one's self at every turn.

Completely illogical beliefs and of course not believed at all until millenia after Christ.

The great irony is what I am teaching has been written and taught since the time of Christ and yet you suggest it is "my interpretation".

Ironically you actually have the novel interpretation but your closed eyes have not yet seen. It is there for you though.

Heb 9:4 -> John 6:32,
John 1:14

Ex 40:34-35 -> Luke 1:35

2 Sam 6:14-16 -> Luke 1:44

2 Sam 6:11 -> Luke 1:56

Plain sight

Do protestant Christians (some or all) believe Mary was announced in the protoevangelium?