scripture alone?

from comment

comment 63 here http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/whose-lens-are-you-using/

Neither Augustine nor Cyril were sola scripturist. A rightly held high view of scripture does not make one a sola scripturist.

“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.” 
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).

“But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church.” 
Augustine, On the Trinity, 4,6:10 (A.D. 416).

Augustine’s quote is clearly not about the tradition and authority of the church but specifically about ‘other letters’ which were thought by some to be canonical.

Cyril was not sola scripturist either.

“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures….Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.”
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350).

Here is St. Cyril’s Catholic understanding of the rule of faith. Elsewhere, St. Cyril points to the Church not to Scripture for the definition of the canon: “Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New” (Catechetical Lectures ,4:33).

If Cyril DID teach sola scriptura than ya’ll have a problem. Because Cyril’s
Catechetical Lectures are filled with his forceful teachings on
the infallible teaching office of the Catholic Church (18:23), the
Mass as a sacrifice (23:6-8), the concept of purgatory and the
efficacy of expiatory prayers for the dead (23:10), the Real
Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (19:7; 21:3; 22:1-9), the
theology of sacraments (1:3), the intercession of the saints
(23:9), holy orders (23:2), the importance of frequent Communion
(23:23), baptismal regeneration (1:1-3; 3:10-12; 21:3-4), indeed a
staggering array of specifically “Catholic” doctrines.

comment 64

 Chrysostom was no sola scripturist either.

” ‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.’ Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther.” John Chrysostom, Homily on 2nd Thessalonians, 4:2 (A.D. 404).

“Do not hold aloof from the Church; for nothing is stronger than the Church. The Church is thy hope, thy salvation, thy refuge. It is higher than the heaven, it is wider than the earth. It never waxes old, but is always in full vigour. Wherefore as significant of its solidity and stability Holy Scripture calls it a mountain: or of its purity a virgin, or of its magnificence a queen; or of its relationship to God a daughter; and to express its productiveness it calls her barren who has borne seven…”
Chrysostom, Eutropius, 2:6 (A.D. 399).

“It is an easier thing for the sun to be quenched, than for the church to be made invisible.”

John Chrysostom, In illud: vidi Dom. (ante A.D. 407).

end quote

“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.”
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).

from comment 13 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/12/justification-catholic-church-and-the-judaizers/

 When I say that we (Catholics) read Scripture through the Fathers, you respond by saying that Scripture is more authoritative than the Fathers. Of course Scripture is more authoritative than the Fathers. That’s not the question. The question is whether we come to Scripture through the Fathers, or we use our own individual interpretation of nuda scriptura to critique the Fathers, accepting from the Fathers only what fits our nuda scriptura interpretation, and rejecting what doesn’t. (And thus making the Fathers hermeneutically superfluous and irrelevant.) Because Catholics are not ecclesial deists, we don’t use nuda scriptura to critique the Fathers; we come to Scripture through the Fathers and the Tradition.

also here  comment 94 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/clark-frame-and-the-analogy-of-painting-a-magisterial-target-around-ones-interpretive-arrow/

 There is no such thing as scripture – by itself – being the “defining definition”. What does that mean? In every case – every single case – always – unavoidably – inevitably – without exception – what is presented for human belief is an *interpretation* of scripture. By itself, scripture (the 66 books of the Protestant bible) is a collection of words and symbols on paper, bound together in a codex. Itsmeaning, the doctrines it is said to contain, always involve some agency extracting from those words, sentences, paragraphs and books, a series of concepts proposed as doctrines for belief. And that extraction process is done by some human agency, perhaps with or without divine assistance and protection; but by some instrumental human agency nonetheless. The act of human interpretationprior to acquisition of scripture’s meaning is literally unavoidable.

Even if you never communicated “Ted’s interpretation of scripture” to anyone else, but simply retained it within your own mind, your interior beliefs about the doctrines which scripture contains will have been filtered through your own set of background assumption, expertise (or lack) in the biblical languages, etc., etc. Every claim you have made on this site about “what scripture teaches” (as if it just leapt off the page without filtering through your mind or someone else’s before becoming communicable concepts) is nothing less than Ted Bigelow’s personal *interpretation* of the words, sentences, paragraphs and books of scripture. There is no getting around that fact. The question is not whether we receive the truths of scripture through the lens of some human (perhaps divinely assisted) interpretation thereof. We do and we must – full stop. The only question is *whose* interpretation?

For this reason, you cannot credibly suggest that you alone, unlike confessional Reformed and Catholic Christians (and however other many communions you wish to name), are exempt from necessarily operating within an interpretive tradition/paradigm, so that you alone imbibe the pure, un-interpreted, sap of scripture acting as its own “defining definition” (whatever that would mean). Until someone reads and interprets the words, no concepts, propositions, doctrines, emerge for belief. A book just sits on a table – inert. Only when the words in a book are interpreted by a person(s) does an object of belief or assent become re-cognizable. No, you most definitely operate within an interpretive tradition – your own.

Therefore:

Any interpretation of Scripture that leads Ted Bigelow away from Ted Bigelow’s personal interpretive doctrines gets the same response from Houston. Fill in the blank with what you choose: *Ted Bigelow-ism*, 3FU, RCC magisterial Tradition, Orthodox tradition, Confession x, etc.

You are not exempt, nor is any biblicist, from this situation.