Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

[simonthezealot]

Get hold of any of the many standard works on how the canon of the NT was established - then you'll understand that you only have the text you have because of the Tradition of the Church.

No one ever said we were opposed to tradition which is found to be soundly derived from scripture...The use of scripture for doctrine and edification would be a tradition soundly derived from scripture itself. Self fulfilling proof that scripture is the one and only area of authority.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Anglian;Dear Rick,

You did cheer me up!

No one has said that the OT did not exist, but the Bereans did not use it to establish a canon which did not exist;

The same no one says they did.

they accepted Paul's claim that what he preached was the fulfilment of the Jewish tradition of the Messiah.

Not until they checked the veracity of his message by checking the scriptures they had (OT).

I am assuming you know that the canon of the NT consists of 27 books which had to be authorised at some point. It was authorised by the Church.

All beside the point.

Before the Church did so we can see, from the earliest surviving books that some Christians thought Hermas, Barnabas and 1 Clement were Holy Scripture; there they are in the Codex Alexandrinus (Clement) and the Codex Sinaiticus (Hermas and Barnabas).

So what? What has that got to do with the fact that the Bereans checked scripture to see if what Paul said was true?

I hadn't realised you meant by Sola Scriptura that you read no books except the Scriptures.

Don't "realize" that. It isn't even close to what I meant.
I meant that scripture can be used to verify spiritual truths.

Get hold of any of the many standard works on how the canon of the NT was established - then you'll understand that you only have the text you have because of the Tradition of the Church.

No I won't.

Your interpretation of the Berean episode was exploded way back on one of Montalban's posts.

No they weren't. That was Montalban exploding, not my argument. Wipe off your computer screen.

The Bereans looked at the OT, like the Thessalonian Jews;

So you admit it, then... good.

but they accepted the oral testimony of Paul, an Apostle by the selection of the Lord.

That isn't what the scripture says. Is that the tradition talking? Have you been imbibing tradition again, Ang?

They did not say, 'look here Paul, where's your book? We've got one here, and we only accept stuff in a book. We're Sola Scriptura types, so, no book, no converts.'

Thanks to scripture, we can check for ourselves:
Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Sola Scriptura isn't reading only the Bible (lol), it is searching the scriptures to find out whether spiritual things said are so.

 

[simonthezealot]

I guess that what you must do since you cannot give any Scripture to prove Sola-Scriptura. .

3 points regarding 2 timnothy 3:16-17 regarding Sola Scriptura being plainly taught in scripture...
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16(A)All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that (B)the man of God may be adequate, (C)equipped for every good work.

1.) Paul here teaches that the Bible is A rule of faith. For he says the Church's function of teaching and rebuking and instructing is to be based upon God-inspired Scriptures.

2.) We see that this passage teaches the sufficiency of the Scriptures to function in this way.

3.) We see that Paul not only does not refer us to another rule of faith, but implicitly denies the necessity of such a rule of faith by his teaching on the ability of Scripture to completely equip the man of God.

Therefore, I assert that the doctrine of sola scriptura is taught plainly in this passage.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi Anglian,
Are there differences between Roman Catholic interpretation and Orthodox, however small they may be? Presumably, there must be. Are there differences in Oral Tradition between RC and Orthodox churches? Again, presumably, there must be or your practices would be the same.

In your opinion, which interpretation is correct? Orthodox or Roman Catholic?

I ask the above questions because you frequently post your comments as if there is no difference between your church and the RC church. You write as if all Orthodox churches practise the same thing as do RCs. You write as if your church is at war only with Protestants and the Great Schism is nothing more than a minor misunderstanding and you are happy to accept that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.

I would say there appears to be 4 different Holy Spirits. One for the Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants and Solo Scripturists.

Revelation 8:5 And the angel took the censer, and filled it with Fire out of the Altar, and cast it into the Land: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake. [Luke 12:49]

Reve 20:9 And they ascended on the breadth of the Land and they surround the camp of the holy-ones and the city, the having been loved. And descended Fire out of the heaven and it devoured them.

 

[Anglian]

No one ever said we were opposed to tradition which is found to be soundly derived from scripture...The use of scripture for doctrine and edification would be a tradition soundly derived from scripture itself. Self fulfilling proof that scripture is the one and only area of authority.

Dear Simon,

I'm delighted at the progress you make in understanding the Orthodox concept of Holy Tradition. You're getting it, but aren't quite there yet.

Holy Scripture is an essential part of Holy Tradition, indeed, it grew out of the other three parts: the ECFs, the Liturgy and the Councils. Taken together, you get as close as you're going to; any one part taken in isolation risks you going badly wrong.

It's like a chair - 2 legs or 4? We think 4, you balance unstably on 2 - hence the numerous protestant infallible popes.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It's like a chair - 2 legs or 4? We think 4, you balance unstably on 2 - hence the numerous protestant infallible popes.
Peace,
Anglian

So infallible popes are protestants?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Luke 6:35 Morely be loving thine enemies, and be doing good, and be lending, nothing expecting, and shall be the wages of ye much, and ye shall be sons of Most-High, that He good/kind upon the ungrateful and wicked. [Proverbs 25:22/Romans 12:20]

Proverbs 25:22 For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and YHWH shall reward thee. [Romans 12:20]

 

[Anglian]

Dear Rick,

Isn't it taking the personal pope position a little far to refuse to read what scholars have written on the formation of the canon? Or is it just that you fear that theor work might disagree with what you think you know? Willed ignorance seems an odd position from which to conduct a discussion. It certainly makes reasoned argument impossible if you won't read the evidence.

[

Thanks to scripture, we can check for ourselves:
Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Sola Scriptura isn't reading only the Bible (lol), it is searching the scriptures to find out whether spiritual things said are so.

And you know that this letter of St. Paul's is 'Scripture' how? Ah, sorry, forgot, you refuse to read books that would give you an answer that doesn't agree with your own infallible view

St. Paul was canonised as Scripture by the Church. If you are keeping up with the discussion on Holy Tradition (I commend Simon as an apt student here), you'll see that Scripture is an essential part of it, as it grew out of it. But if you won't read anything on this, you'll not know that.

I know you think Catholics don't read Scripture, but I am surprised to learn that some Protestants refuse to read anything else.

Still, everyone to their own.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

And you know this is 'Scripture' exactly how? Because the Church canonised it.

3 points regarding 2 timnothy 3:16-17 regarding Sola Scriptura being plainly taught in scripture...
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16(A)All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that (B)the man of God may be adequate, (C)equipped for every good work.

And you think Paul is referring to what here? Couldn't be the NT, because it didn't exist then. When it had been recognised by the Church as coming from the Apostle, it was scripture.

Sorry, good try but no coconut this time.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear Simon,
And you think Paul is referring to what here? Couldn't be the NT, because it didn't exist then. When it had been recognised by the Church as coming from the Apostle, it was scripture.
Sorry, good try but no coconut this time.
Peace,
Anglian

Well, as Filo Beto responded to Jack Wilson in the movie "Any Which Way You Can"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080377/quotes

J W: "There is no point to this"
F B: "I ain't doing it for points"

 

[Trento]

3 points regarding 2 timnothy 3:16-17 regarding Sola Scriptura being plainly taught in scripture...
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16(A)All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that (B)the man of God may be adequate, (C)equipped for every good work.

1.) Paul here teaches that the Bible is A rule of faith. For he says the Church's function of teaching and rebuking and instructing is to be based upon God-inspired Scriptures.

2.) We see that this passage teaches the sufficiency of the Scriptures to function in this way.

3.) We see that Paul not only does not refer us to another rule of faith, but implicitly denies the necessity of such a rule of faith by his teaching on the ability of Scripture to completely equip the man of God.

Therefore, I assert that the doctrine of sola scriptura is taught plainly in this passage.

You have two problems here which i highlighted. First profitable is not sufficient.
Next
In the Old Testament, the name "man of God" occurs more than sixty times and consistently refers to those who receive direct revelation from God. For example:


Deuteronomy 33:1 And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.



1Kings 17:24 And the woman said to Elijah, "Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in your mouth is truth."

2Kings 5:8 But when Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had rent his clothes, he sent to the king.

Nehemiah 12:24 ...give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God




In the New Testament, the term "man of God" or "men of God" occurs only three times. When used in 2Peter 1:21 (KJV/NKJ), the same "private interpretation" passage discussed earlier, it refers to prophets and thus repeats the Old Testament usage. Then Paul used the name "man of God" in reference to apostle Timothy: "as for you, man of God, aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness" (1st Tim 6:11). Given this overall biblical pattern, "man of God" is an exclusive name designating those of highest authority - it does not refer to each and every believer.

Therefore the third and final reference to "man of God" in the passage which you are using here again found in Paul's letter to apostle Timothy, is significant:


All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. I charge you [apostle Timothy] in the presence of God...preach the word, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching...discharge all the duties of your ministry (2nd Timothy 3:16-4:5).


Since the bible places apostles at the center of biblical interpretation, applies the name "man of God" in an exclusive fashion, and indeed calls apostle Timothy a "man of God" (1st Tim 6:11) - the weight of evidence indicates that "man of God" above refers to apostles. Certainly had Paul intended to reference all Christians in 2nd Timothy 3:17, then saying instead "...that the saints may be complete..." would have properly made the point by harmonizing with the sixty plus uses of the common word "saint" or "saints" in the New Testament. Yet Paul chose the rare and exclusive term. And indeed the underlined words above show the connection to the formal work of a minister.


So Simon since you are a saint according to the bible this passage does not refer to you .

 

[Anglian]

So infallible popes are protestants?

Dear LLOJ,

Hardly. The Pope has spoken infallibly very rarely since the Catholic Church pronounced this dogma, and never does so in a personal manner.

This distinguishes him from those who claim that their own interpretation of Scripture is, guided by the Holy Spirit, sufficient. That would appear to be a claim to personal infallibility. I guess I'm beginning to see why some Protestants don't like the Catholic Church - don't like the idea of some other guy being infallible.


Peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

Wow if one was so intent on defending the truth instead of defending tradtion just think what could be accomplished in the Kingdom of God.. For we Gods Word will not return void.. We are not bound to what the ECF had to say. We are only bound by what the scriptures say. For this is what is written for all to see and read and adhere to. They are alive and active. So what the ECF had to say I am not bound too. So I don't really care what it is they said tee hee..

 

[Anglian]

Wow if one was so intent on defending the truth instead of defending tradtion just think what could be accomplished in the Kingdom of God.. For we Gods Word will not return void.. We are not bound to what the ECF had to say. We are only bound by what the scriptures say. For this is what is written for all to see and read and adhere to. They are alive and active. So what the ECF had to say I am not bound too. So I don't really care what it is they said tee hee..

Dear MamaZ,

No one has ever claimed anyone is 'bound' to what the ECFs say; simply that they may be read with edification.

Have you ever read them? If not, how can you have a valid opinion on them? One of the ways in which the books in the NT were recognised as being Inspired was the number of times they were cited by the ECFs in the second and third century.

You posit, despite explanations to the contrary, a false dichotomy between Tradition and the Word of the Scriptures; they are part of the same process by which we understand the will of God. Listening to ourselves, we understand what we wish; listening to the full Tradition of the Church founded by Christ, we understand what Christ wishes us to understand.

But then, if you have not read any of the ECFs, I am puzzled about what you base your views of their worth upon. The idea that one can learn nothing from St. Basil is astonishing, but if you reject this part of our common heritage, so be it. No one was ever required to grow in wisdom, it is offered, and it will be rejected, even as the cornerstone of the temple was.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Montalban]

Did Jesus direct us to any other than it is written? Did Jesus ever direct anyone to tradtion?

I've already answered this. I showed examples of where he said "You have heard".

This was retorted by a Protestant who claimed that he was merely covering what was also written.

So I asked him where does it say "An eye for an eye"?

And then there was silence

I've heard nothing back.

 

[Montalban]

Your accusing me of misquoting ecf's, buck up and show it.

I already did that. I did that in direct reply to your misquotes. You ignored it.

 

[Montalban]

Ho Ho Ho, Montalban, you're in serious trouble if you dare antagonise the great SimontheZealot. By the way, I'm his novice, beamishboytheZealot. Hehe.

So you're his unthinking supporter here like you are for Applepie7!

 

[Montalban]

Originally Posted by MamaZ

It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture.
​

Originally Posted by Montalban I didn't ask you for Scripture to show all truth. Thanks for the straw-man



Originally Posted by MamaZ

Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
​

Originally Posted by Montalban And the 'truth' that you should rely on scripture for salvation is not contained IN scripture. Try again.

LOL. Where did Mama Z say anyone should rely on scripture for salvation?
Do you not know the difference between salvation & truth, or dso you just enjoy sidetracking with your own straw?

You quoted her saying "Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation "

Can't you read?

 

[Montalban]

Originally Posted by Rick Otto We can check what scriptures we aren't sure are true from what scriptures we know are true., just like the Bereans checked what the apostles were saying by referring to scripture.
Originally Posted by MontalbanWhich is circular logic. How do you know those that are true, are true?

Jesus accepted them. Paul accepted them and used them in an illustration of exemplary behavior. You need to learn to think outside the circle.

Originally Posted by Rick Otto How do you come to the conclusion that the veracity of the 27 books was comprehended without checking them against the OT? Tradition?
Originally Posted by MontalbanBy seeing what the Church had to say of them. They held tradition of what books were known to and through the church and what books taught against what the church taught.
I thought you didn't accept circular logic. The Church believes what's true because it checked to see what The Church believes is true.

That's not illogical. It's logical to believe what you believe. That's the nature of having 'belief'. So you don't even understand this!

It's totally different in you believing the 27 books are canonical because they are canonized… because of how they came to be canonized. Unless you believe they canonized themselves.

Jesus did not accept the 27 books as canonical because they didn't exist when he was on earth. That's another illogical point of yours.

You can't even use the quote function properly. Maybe you're just interested in such strange claims to induce a feeling of pathos from those reading your posts

When you're interested in serious discussion, I'll be waiting.

 

[Montalban]

Posted by Rick Otto Monty,
Posted by Montalban I'll assume you mean me, Montalban

Daffy Duck would applaud your insightfulness
Originally Posted by Rick Otto I told you "It has been said", or "Have you heard" doesn't support tradition - it doesn't count - when it refers to something that was actually written and even widely known among illiterates, to have been written!
Originally Posted by Montalban Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

I'm not "just saying it". The Ten Commandments had been written down.
When "have you heard" refers to something written, it doesn't stand in comparison against an instance of "It is written" being said.
Originally Posted by Montalban Where is it written an eye for an eye?

I'll show you but I suspect you will ignore it, not respond by admitting your error, and simply throw straw to distract from your obvious mistake:
Ex 21:24 - Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Le 24:20 -Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
De 19:21 - And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.


Originally Posted by Rick Otto Nowhere. I read in scripture that scripture was referred to, to check if what the Apostles were saying was true. Nowhere is there an example of anyone referring to tradition to see if what the Apostles was saying was so.
Originally Posted by Montalban What a strange challenge. The Gospels weren't even written when Paul et al were preaching. What else were they using?

The OT is scripture & existed at that time. Is that news to you?
Originally Posted by Montalban Paul writes to people to hold to the traditions he has taught.

Irrelevant. Paul also writes that the Bereans were more noble because they checked scripture (OT!) to see if what the apostles were telling them was true.

Originally Posted by Rick Otto Ergo, Sola Scriptura has strong scriptural support,



I didn't make up the Berean example. You have strayed so far from reality that I probably won't dignify your posts with an actual answer unless you admit your own circular logic & ignorance. I don't have much time for that much daffiness. The sun is shining & there are too many insects that need to be tortured by my magnifying glass.

Originally Posted by Rick Otto tradition as a reference to check truth does not. Sure it says to remember, but that isn't an argument against Sola Scriptura, nor is it a recommendation of tradition as a reference for checking truth.
Originally Posted by Montalban Given that Paul's telling them to keep to the tradition then of course it does. He's saying "keep to tradition".
You interpret him saying "Keep to the traditions taught you" as meaning "Don't rely on these traditions" You simply have to interpret the exact opposite of what it says.

No I don't. I just don't read into "keep the traditions" as "traditions have authority equal to written scripture" or "tradition is a reliable source to gage the veracity of scripture".
Originally Posted by Montalban Did Matthew teach differently from Mark? That is tradition. Even before the Bible came into being the teachings were the same.
That is beside the point. The first half of The Bible had already come into being, and it was used to verify the truth of the next half by the Bereans as it was being delivered to them.
Sola Scriptura.

I accept the 'eye for eye' has been proven by you.

You've ignored the article I posted about the Bereans

Please learn to use the quote function properly

 

[Montalban]

No one ever said we were opposed to tradition which is found to be soundly derived from scripture...The use of scripture for doctrine and edification would be a tradition soundly derived from scripture itself. Self fulfilling proof that scripture is the one and only area of authority.

You've put the cart before the horse. It was tradition that was used to test Scripture - when they came to canonize the NT