Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[Montalban]

I was a Protestant, LLOJ, for the overwhelming majority of my life. I get sola scriptura. What I don't get is CJ's "lock, stock and barrel" rant that he keeps repeating.

I've tried this with his own 'analogy' about living in Arizona.

He said it didn't matter about my objections because we both accept the canon.

I pointed out that the reason 'why' we believe in the canon is important.

I took his analogy of living in Arizona. I might obey a law because I voted for a party that implemented it, and he might obey the law because he thinks aliens control the government and he doesn't want to be zapped.

Why we follow the scripure is important.

Unfortunately I've not seen any evidence from scripture to follow ONLY scripture.

 

[katherine2001]

Most or all EOs and RCs here don't and probably never will, since SS appears to be more of a Protestant thang

Except that many EO are converts from Evangelical/Protestant denominations and understand SS very well.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

They're pointing out errors of points of dogma to Orthodox who don't believe in those points.

I'm not. I never said anything about 'error' (because I'm not sure that "right" or "wrong" or "truth" are issues in Orthodoxy). I only responded to the point that TRADITION should be the rule. So, I noted TRADITION. In fact, INERRANT Tradition. APOSTOLIC Tradition. RIGHT FROM the 13 Apostles Tradition. Because every Catholic Bishop in the world will tell you, right there, right there in that TRADITION that we're told is the better norm than Scripture, right there in that TRADITION we're told is more objectively knowable by all - there is DE FIDE DOGMAS (teachings of the highest level of certainty and importance) of Purgatory, Original Sin, the INFALLIBILITY of the Bishop in Rome, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary: de fide dogma. Right there. In TRADITION. According to every Catholic Bishop in the world. So, that rule is the one more inerrant than Scripture, more objectively and univerally knowable than Scripture - and yet, what about the EO that does NOT teach them (anymore anyway - one of my Catholic teachers insisted you once did, I think he was just wrong - I can say that now that I'm not Catholic).

I didn't answer it. Frankly, what the EO calls "Tradition" is not what the RC calls Tradition or what the LDS calls Tradition. MY experience is those that suggest such in lieu of Scripture simply mean what self believes, so it becomes: I"m right if I alone agree with me alone.

Now, I DO think the EO places great importance on the 7 Ecumenical Councils. And I'm very sympathic to this - I too hold them in great regard. That might be a different subject. And perhaps here is where Theka had a point: Protestants and Catholics have a different issue here

I don't believe in a co-redemprtix so demanding that I address it is pointless.

hehe - that pretty well summerizes my opinion of nearly all the distinctive RCC doctrines (in that case, soon to be dogma) - the things that makes the RCC the RCC.





.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

"Never wrestle with a pig: You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it."

By "pig", who are you referring to?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Except that many EO are converts from Evangelical/Protestant denominations and understand SS very well.

Yeah, I hear that a lot from the RCs. Congrats

I was raised RC until I was 17. I then became a non-denominational "Christian Seeker".
Since then, I have remained Scripture only so I am like a "alien" on GT.

Here is what I have seen quoted from RCs a few times

"But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me." - Catholic Answers Forums

"But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me."

 

[Thekla]

CaliforniaJosiah,

what you perhaps don't appreciate is that the heretical teachings of both Arius and Origen (his later teachings, and in fact other heretical teachings throughout the ages) were all supported Scripturally.

If we give Scripture the sole norming authority, then we give authority to the heretical teachings of Arius (and others) that "come from" Scripture.

(And in addition, we give greater authority to Scripture than to Christ, we divorce Scripture and doctrine from the Christian life.)

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Having bishops makes the denomination infallible, unaccountable and exempt from the issue of truth? Well, that makes the LDS infallible...

It makes my denomination infallible, unaccountable, and exempt from Truth,too (although it does not use that Greek word for the office).


IF you think truth matters in Christian doctrine (and THAT does seem to be the "rub"), then accountability matters and you've just embraced norming (the effort to evaluate the validity/correctness/truthfulness of such) and the need for a sound norma normans (rule) in such - and you've taken the first step in discussing the issue of this thread.

Ah but LDS doesn't have apostolic succession.

Either way, having apostolic succession does not itself guarantee the truth. It is, however, another safe-guard to protecting the truth.

You would agree that safe-guards are a good thing, no?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

CaliforniaJosiah,

what you perhaps don't appreciate is that the heretical teachings of both Arius and Origen (his later teachings, and in fact other heretical teachings throughout the ages) were all supported Scripturally.

If we give Scripture the sole norming authority, then we give authority to the heretical teachings of Arius (and others) that "come from" Scripture.

(And in addition, we give greater authority to Scripture than to Christ, we divorce Scripture and doctrine from the Christian life.)

I am curious of this as well? How do we determine what is authentic teaching from heretical teaching if both teachers use the bible to support their beliefs?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Except that many EO are converts from Evangelical/Protestant denominations and understand SS very well.

And we also know that one person's definition of SS is not necessarily the same as another person's SS

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Well, he is a Lutheran......watdaya expect

http://www.christianforums.com/t7437997-7/#post54059895
Were Martin Luther and John Calvin "anti-RC"?

"If I were younger I would want to learn this language [i.e. Hebrew], for without it one can never properly understand the Holy Scripture….
For that reason they have said correctly: 'The Jews drink out of the original spring, The Greeks drink out of the stream flowing out of the stream, The Latins, however, out of the puddle.'"
--Martin Luther (1483-1546)

If Luther came from the Latins, then where does he drink from I wonder? I can venture a guess...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Indeed, that's called a Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and is why Sola Scriptura doesn't really work, because all it does is results in cherry-picking the Bible.

And if one is bold enough to venture into the writings of the fathers, this practice tends to carry over as well I find...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

... this coming from the one who says Tradition is the best rule in the evaluation of the correctness of positions, what is MORE inspired than Scripture, MORE inerrant than Scripture, MORE reliable than Scripture, MORE knowable by all and unalterable by all, MORE ecumenically and historically embraced. Yeah. Well, Tradition embraces Cardinal and an infallible Pope and Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Original Sin and Transubstantiation and the Assumption of Mary - the later all as DE FIDE DOGMA - the highest level of teaching, all STRIGHT FROM TRADITION. It's all there - ask any Catholic bishop. Right there in Tradition. Oh, and ask any Mormon Bishop if Tradition includes Joseph Smith finding those plates and Jesus visiting the Americas - yup, it's all THERE - right there in Tradition - and you have noted that Tradition should be the rule in determining what is correct and what is not.

(To my Protestant friends: When the RCC and LDS say "Tradition" what is meant is "what I teach." Yes, IF they would accept ANY norma normans in ANY normative process - and they won't - that would be the one rule that might be considered: do I agree with me?)




.

It's best to compare later traditions to earlier traditions in this case...

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

And if one is bold enough to venture into the writings of the fathers, this practice tends to carry over as well I find...

Well, I'm in agreement with Sunlover1 when what this ECF said or what that ECF said is quoted. She said "You might not bother posting ECF stuff to me because after all, isn't it men giving their interpretation of God's Words. So why not go right to the source." I might go as far as to include Wiki links and links to orthodox/catholic apologetic sites in with that. I take what is written (especially concerning Scripture) in sites like those with a grain of salt. And as far as Confirmation bias is concerned, pot meet kettle.... because it's just like what EO and RCC do concerning Sola Scriptura (but not limited to Sola Scriptura).

 

[laconicstudent]

CaliforniaJosiah,

what you perhaps don't appreciate is that the heretical teachings of both Arius and Origen (his later teachings, and in fact other heretical teachings throughout the ages) were all supported Scripturally.

If we give Scripture the sole norming authority, then we give authority to the heretical teachings of Arius (and others) that "come from" Scripture.

(And in addition, we give greater authority to Scripture than to Christ, we divorce Scripture and doctrine from the Christian life.)

 

[laconicstudent]

Well, I'm in agreement with Sunlover1 when what this ECF said or what that ECF said is quoted. She said "You might not bother posting ECF stuff to me because after all, isn't it men giving their interpretation of God's Words. So why not go right to the source." I might go as far as to include Wiki links and links to orthodox/catholic apologetic sites in with that. I take what is written (especially concerning Scripture) in sites like those with a grain of salt.

Because a lot of us aren't prideful enough to believe we know better than the Apostles, their immediate disciples and other Church Fathers?


"To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one's own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency."

St. Basil the Great, Epistle To the Canonicae, 52:1

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Well, I'm in agreement with Sunlover1 when what this ECF said or what that ECF said is quoted. She said "You might not bother posting ECF stuff to me because after all, isn't it men giving their interpretation of God's Words. So why not go right to the source." I might go as far as to include Wiki links and links to orthodox/catholic apologetic sites in with that. I take what is written (especially concerning Scripture) in sites like those with a grain of salt.

That is assuming that God no longer speaks through man, which I wouldn't dare to assume.

 

[Montalban]

Well, I'm in agreement with Sunlover1 when what this ECF said or what that ECF said is quoted. She said "You might not bother posting ECF stuff to me because after all, isn't it men giving their interpretation of God's Words. So why not go right to the source." I might go as far as to include Wiki links and links to orthodox/catholic apologetic sites in with that. I take what is written (especially concerning Scripture) in sites like those with a grain of salt. And as far as Confirmation bias is concerned, pot meet kettle.... because it's just like what EO and RCC do concerning Sola Scriptura (but not limited to Sola Scriptura).

And yet you think it's valid that you guys post Catholic teaching at Orthodox!

 

[Thekla]

... and do you know that the RCC teaches DE FIDE DOGMA - teachings of the highest certainty and greatest importance - from Tradition that the EO not only doesn't teach but occasionally calls "wrong?"

.... Maybe we can try this one more time? Read the following. I'm going to place in blue, bold font the part you are ignorant about:





And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others

If we give Scripture the sole norming authority, then we give authority to the heretical teachings of Arius (and others) that "come from" Scripture.

(And in addition, we give greater authority to Scripture than to Christ, we divorce Scripture and doctrine from the Christian life.)

[/quote]

The blue font statement didn't show up, sorry.

Your example still does not negate the problem/s with Scripture as sola norm.

(As for the RC, some would observe that they do not evidence the "phronema" of the Church, which is part of Tradition.)

 

[laconicstudent]

And yet you think it's valid that you guys post Catholic teaching at Orthodox!

Surely you aren't saying that Eastern Orthodox aren't just some sort of Greek/Russian ethnicky versions of Roman Catholics?

That would render the past page or so of this thread completely pointless!!!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It's best to compare later traditions to earlier traditions in this case...

Yeah, there would go the RCC, lol.... You'd like that.


But then there goes the Dogma of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, too. We had centuries of the tradition of silence on that (the Protestant tradition) LONG before anyone said that Mary had no sex ever. Do earlier traditions like that (silence about Mary's sex life) trump later ones ("Mary Had No Sex Ever?")


How early you want to go? 100 AD? 200 AD? 300 AD?


And whose? The RCC ones (they include an INFALLIBLE pope to the second century) or the EO ones (there's no infallible pope there). Does it include the Oriental Orthodox Tradition (much of it is second century too - some of it is regarded as heresy, I believe). Do you include the Tradition of Gnosticism - the oldest tradition of all? Whose?




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah



.