Explain sola scriptura to me

[Wgw]

And in Matt 16 to make the point stick "beware of the leaven of the pharisees" - a clear reference to TEACHING and clear example of Christ smacking down even the disciples for taking Him "too literally".

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The rejection of Pharisaism and Sadduceanism continues in the Orthodox Church into the present with the rejection of Rabinnical and Karaite Judaism (Rabinnical Judaism is Pharisaic; the Karaites like the Sadduccees reject the Oral Torah, but they are not the direct successor of the Sadduccees).

The traditions which are rejected include those concerning the Sabbath, which is still holy in the Orthodox Church. In our tradition, there are liturgies on this day; it plays host to Vespers; it is the day throughout the year when post-funeral memorials are held for the departed. However we reject the ban on exertion that one finds in Judaism or your own denomination.

 

[BobRyan]

Here we have a great example of wordS spoken by Christ - so much to be avoided if one is turning a blind eye to the Bible teaching on sola scriptura.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it's traditions and "doctrines of men" are at odds with scripture.

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The traditions which are rejected include those concerning the Sabbath, which is still holy in the Orthodox Church.

In Mark 2 there are traditions rejected by Christ so also in Mark 7 -- some of them had to do with eating, and others with drinking from cups, and others with Sabbath - they made up all sorts of things.

The sola scriptura method of testing that we see Christ use in Mark 7 -- is what we use.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

we can rule out the Great Apostasy interpretation of 2 Thess 2:3, as it contradicts Matthew 16:18. It is imperative when performing exegesis that one be consistent.

If you need to reject 2Thess 2 to hold to a false interpretation of Matt 16 involving a lot of inference into the Matt 16 text which is not at all justified - then maybe backing off of some of that tradition loaded into Matt 16 is the right thing to do.

 

[Wgw]

If you need to reject 2Thess 2 to hold to a false interpretation of Matt 16 involving a lot of inference into the Matt 16 text which is not at all justified - then maybe backing off of some of that tradition loaded into Matt 16 is the right thing to do.

On the contrary, 2 Thess 2:3 is not rejected but simply read as part of a consistent exegesis. This verse is held to refer to the end times; a general apostasy will directly precede the coming of the anti-Christ (in a final and not symbolic way; i.e. the actual personification evil as opposed to a random dictator like Nero, Tamerlane, or Hitler, or as opposed to the heresiarch-du-jour, or in the views of Martin Luther, the Pope, et cetera). Thr Orthodox as a matter of course do not fret excessively about the eschaton, since this is a prospect we all inevitably face; our eschatology is admittedly different from the highly unusual eschatology of your denomination.

 

[BobRyan]

2Thess 2
Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.


Rev 12
11 And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death. 12 For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time.”
13 And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. 14 But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she *was nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. 15 And the serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, so that he might cause her to be swept away with the flood. 16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and drank up the river which the dragon poured out of his mouth. 17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus

 

[Wgw]

2Thess 2
Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.


Rev 12
11 And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death. 12 For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time.”
13 And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. 14 But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she *was nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. 15 And the serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, so that he might cause her to be swept away with the flood. 16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and drank up the river which the dragon poured out of his mouth. 17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus

I fail to see your point.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I fail to see your point.

I'm starting to think he just pastes stuff into threads now.

As a preterist, I see much fulfillment already accomplished... which doesn't necessarily rule out a dual/repeat fulfillment of some kind in the future but which also doesn't necessarily require it.

 

[Wgw]

I'm starting to think he just pastes stuff into threads now.

As a preterist, I see much fulfillment already accomplished... which doesn't necessarily rule out a dual/repeat fulfillment of some kind in the future but which also doesn't necessarily require it.

Note that the interpretation I posted was from the Orthodox Study Bible; eschatology is of little interest to me; I view it as essentially heresiogenic and somewhat irrelevant since it would seem we are to find out one way or the other.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Here we have a great example of wordS spoken by Christ - so much to be avoided if one is turning a blind eye to the Bible teaching on sola scriptura.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it's traditions and "doctrines of men" are at odds with scripture.

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.




In Mark 2 there are traditions rejected by Christ so also in Mark 7 -- some of them had to do with eating, and others with drinking from cups, and others with Sabbath - they made up all sorts of things.

The sola scriptura method of testing that we see Christ use in Mark 7 -- is what we use.

in Christ,

Bob

To the bolded, yes, you do. What we've shown is how it leads to error. If you went by Scripture alone, you couldn't prove the Trinity the way we understand it. If you went by Scripture alone, you would not know what is contained in Scripture-the table of contents. If you went by Scripture alone, there's a lot of doctrine you would not have.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Note that the interpretation I posted was from the Orthodox Study Bible; eschatology is of little interest to me; I view it as essentially heresiogenic and somewhat irrelevant since it would seem we are to find out one way or the other.

First I have heard of that version.
Sounds interesting......

http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb2.aspx

Review of the Orthodox Study Bible
by Priest Seraphim Johnson

The Orthodox Study Bible (Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1993) makes a very good initial impression. The bindings are handsome, the Bible is nicely printed, and it is graced by a number of full-color icons scattered through the book. It uses the increasingly popular New King James Version (NKJV) for the text. On the whole this version is an acceptable modernization of the King James Version (KJV), while retaining some of the literary quality of the latter. An additional advantage of the NKJV is that it indicates the Majority Text readings, since these generally correspond even more fully to the Church's text than do the KJV readings. However, it is disappointing that the Study Bible reproduces the whole textual apparatus of the NKJV, including many of the doubtful decisions of modern non-Orthodox biblical scholarship; it would have been preferable for them to have corrected the text to agree with that of the Church and then to present only that text, since the whole matter of textual criticism is complex and primarily serves to cause doubts and questions in the minds of non-technical readers of the Scriptures.

While the NKJV is a generally acceptable text for the New Testament, its use for the Psalter is completely unacceptable. It is very unfortunate that the Study Bible uses a Protestant version of the Psalter in what claims to be a Bible for Orthodox Christians, following even the Protestant numbering of the psalms, rather than that of the Church. Several translations of the psalms from the Orthodox Church's Septuagint version into English have appeared in the last 20 years, and it surely would have been possible for the publishers to have arranged to use one of these if they truly wanted to offer an Orthodox text of the Bible to their readers.............................




.

 

[BobRyan]

Here we have a great example of wordS spoken by Christ - so much to be avoided if one is turning a blind eye to the Bible teaching on sola scriptura.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it's traditions and "doctrines of men" are at odds with scripture.

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.




In Mark 2 there are traditions rejected by Christ so also in Mark 7 -- some of them had to do with eating, and others with drinking from cups, and others with Sabbath - they made up all sorts of things.

The sola scriptura method of testing that we see Christ use in Mark 7 -- is what we use.

To the bolded, yes, you do. What we've shown is how it leads to error.

On the contrary - in Mark 7 Christ shows how church tradition was leading to error when unchecked - sola scriptura.

If you went by Scripture alone, you couldn't prove the Trinity

On the contrary - all of our doctrinal Bible studies with new Christians and with non-believers use the sola scriptura method to prove the Trinity doctrine.

next.

If you went by Scripture alone, you would not know what is contained in Scripture-

We have a great deal of information in scripture - not at all requiring us to dig up an ancient Catholic decision or argument or ....

If you want to claim that "The Bible plus the table of contents plus the page numbers on each page plus the outside cover" is your version of sola scriptura - fine. I have no problem with that.

 

[Wgw]

First I have heard of that version.
Sounds interesting......

http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb2.aspx

Review of the Orthodox Study Bible
by Priest Seraphim Johnson

The Orthodox Study Bible (Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1993) makes a very good initial impression. The bindings are handsome, the Bible is nicely printed, and it is graced by a number of full-color icons scattered through the book. It uses the increasingly popular New King James Version (NKJV) for the text. On the whole this version is an acceptable modernization of the King James Version (KJV), while retaining some of the literary quality of the latter. An additional advantage of the NKJV is that it indicates the Majority Text readings, since these generally correspond even more fully to the Church's text than do the KJV readings. However, it is disappointing that the Study Bible reproduces the whole textual apparatus of the NKJV, including many of the doubtful decisions of modern non-Orthodox biblical scholarship; it would have been preferable for them to have corrected the text to agree with that of the Church and then to present only that text, since the whole matter of textual criticism is complex and primarily serves to cause doubts and questions in the minds of non-technical readers of the Scriptures.

While the NKJV is a generally acceptable text for the New Testament, its use for the Psalter is completely unacceptable. It is very unfortunate that the Study Bible uses a Protestant version of the Psalter in what claims to be a Bible for Orthodox Christians, following even the Protestant numbering of the psalms, rather than that of the Church. Several translations of the psalms from the Orthodox Church's Septuagint version into English have appeared in the last 20 years, and it surely would have been possible for the publishers to have arranged to use one of these if they truly wanted to offer an Orthodox text of the Bible to their readers.............................

.

The OSB is stylistically rubbish, however, the commentary in it was by a distinguished group of scholars including Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. So as a convenient reference it is quite handy. I would have preferred it had they licensed the Jordanville Psalter and used traditional language throughout; the KJV as far as the NT is concerned is respected by many Orthodox (although I have objections to confusing, Protestant-influenced language in parts; I think the Douay Rheims is rather more reliable).

 

[Wgw]

Here we have a great example of wordS spoken by Christ - so much to be avoided if one is turning a blind eye to the Bible teaching on sola scriptura.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it's traditions and "doctrines of men" are at odds with scripture.

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.




In Mark 2 there are traditions rejected by Christ so also in Mark 7 -- some of them had to do with eating, and others with drinking from cups, and others with Sabbath - they made up all sorts of things.

The sola scriptura method of testing that we see Christ use in Mark 7 -- is what we use.




On the contrary - in Mark 7 Christ shows how church tradition was leading to error when unchecked - sola scriptura.




On the contrary - all of our doctrinal Bible studies with new Christians and with non-believers use the sola scriptura method to prove the Trinity doctrine.

next.





We have a great deal of information in scripture - not at all requiring us to dig up an ancient Catholic decision or argument or ....

If you want to claim that "The Bible plus the table of contents plus the page numbers on each page plus the outside cover" is your version of sola scriptura - fine. I have no problem with that.

Except then it would not be sola scriptura, would it? It would be sola scriptura plus a tiny bit of Tradition we accepted because we found it convenient. This is unacceptable; we can not accept or reject individual parts of Tradition; the thrology of St. Athanasius, who defined the NT canon, is exceedingly relevant.

 

[Root of Jesse]

On the contrary - in Mark 7 Christ shows how church tradition was leading to error when unchecked - sola scriptura.

Right-human tradition, not Sacred Tradition, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

On the contrary - all of our doctrinal Bible studies with new Christians and with non-believers use the sola scriptura method to prove the Trinity doctrine.

next.

There's no doctrine of the Trinity in Scripture.

We have a great deal of information in scripture - not at all requiring us to dig up an ancient Catholic decision or argument or ....

If you want to claim that "The Bible plus the table of contents plus the page numbers on each page plus the outside cover" is your version of sola scriptura - fine. I have no problem with that.

Nope. That's not at all what I claimed. I claimed, and believe, that there is no doctrine at all without Sacred Tradition.

 

[Wgw]

Mark 7 had nothing to do with Church Tradition, but rather, with the false traditions of the Sadduccees and Pharisees.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Note that the interpretation I posted was from the Orthodox Study Bible; eschatology is of little interest to me; I view it as essentially heresiogenic and somewhat irrelevant since it would seem we are to find out one way or the other.

It isn't that I disagree. If anything, I think obsessing over that stuff is a bit unhealthy, actually. And let's not talk about the wacky, borderline heretical ideas that come out of that. But those same heretical ideas are precisely why a basic understanding of the subject.