Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[seashale76]

...

 

[heymikey80]

Really? That's cool, who is your diocesan bishop?

Whose was the Ethiopian's, again?

How about Lydia's?

Better yet, Mary's and Martha's ....

Y'know, orthodox Christians ....

Come to think of it, we do end up having the same Shepherd and Overseer of our souls. But then, you'd know who our diocesan Bishop would be.

 

[laconicstudent]

Whose was the Ethiopian's, again?

Probably St. Mark.

How about Lydia's?

Dunno, we know they had them though.

1Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Better yet, Mary's and Martha's ....

Probably St. James

Y'know, orthodox Christians ....

Yes?

Come to think of it, we do end up having the same Shepherd and Overseer of our souls. But then, you'd know who our diocesan Bishop would be.

No, we do not. And I have no idea who your bishop is, or if you obey him, but I live in www.dowoca.org

 

[Anoetos]

And yet, the bible doesn't indicate any official distinction between bishops and elders (presbyters). In fact, Paul, advising Titus, clearly conflates them:

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer (a bishop) manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. Titus 1:5-9

Parenthesis added for clarity.

 

[Timothew]

How about Lydia's?

In a way, Paul?

One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.

 

[Standing Up]

And yet, the bible doesn't indicate any official distinction between bishops and elders (presbyters). In fact, Paul, advising Titus, clearly conflates them:



Parenthesis added for clarity.

That's correct. Even RC and EO admit this was so in the early Church.

 

[Standing Up]

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.)

Those who fought Arius also used scripture. Arius was like the devil in not understanding the whole of God's council as revealed in scripture.

Have you found the tradition sources that supported anti-Arius?

 

[Standing Up]

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?

Thank you! Hooray. Hopefully, everyone can agree with this. Folks, Firmillian in 256ad said, anyone may know Rome doesn't follow the apostolic teaching handed down.

Now, given that fact, how will you know which bishop is or is not protecting the truth? What is the rule of faith? How will you test the "apostle"?

 

[Thekla]

Those who fought Arius also used scripture. Arius was like the devil in not understanding the whole of God's council as revealed in scripture.

Have you found the tradition sources that supported anti-Arius?

If you refer to the post with the quoted portion (Romanides), you will find some there; further research from his footnotes as well as reading extant rebuttals will provide the counter-argument.

As I said also, it is the Tradition that actually identified the false teaching. You will find in further reading (where sources are extant) that the same verses are interpreted differently by respective sides.

 

[Standing Up]

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

Yes it does. And as Irenaeus opined, tie it to an apostle.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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



.

Hmm infallible pope in the 2nd century? That's news to me, what sources do you have on that one? As far as the virginity issue, we would have to look at the witness of the early established churches and see how prevalent the teaching was among them, and we would have to see how it fit into the whole picture, and whether it builds up the rest of the Christian teachings or detracts from them. AFAIK, most of the early reformers took this for granted, so that could be considered as well. Personally, I see such a thing as emphasizing the uniqueness of Christ and the sanctity of bearing God in flesh, so I don't see any harm in such a belief, but that's just me...

 

[Standing Up]

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).

Good insight. Most folks know about the ECFs who support their position, but have no knowledge of those who opposed.

For ex;ample, Polycarp taught the Church what the apostles taught as regards what scripture says about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But nearly everyone follows the formed custom of Rome that became the norm at Nicea.

Another example, most folks teach the eucharist is sacrifice (real flesh and blood), yet very few know of Blandina who was martyred for holding the opposite view and who only needed to agree with that view in order to remain alive.

So, ECFs may be very useful and many were in fact Christians who I expect one day to meet in heaven.

 

[Standing Up]

If you refer to the post with the quoted portion (Romanides), you will find some there; further research from his footnotes as well as reading extant rebuttals will provide the counter-argument.

As I said also, it is the Tradition that actually identified the false teaching. You will find in further reading (where sources are extant) that the same verses are interpreted differently by respective sides.

What post? Can't you make it easy for me? Copy a quote from didache or Barnabas or something, pretty please, that says eternally existed as we believe.

 

[Thekla]

What post? Can't you make it easy for me? Copy a quote from didache or Barnabas or something, pretty please, that says eternally existed as we believe.

Here is a link to the article I posted from:
THE LORD YAHWEH OF GLORY IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS Part 2

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Good insight. Most folks know about the ECFs who support their position, but have no knowledge of those who opposed.

For ex;ample, Polycarp taught the Church what the apostles taught as regards what scripture says about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But nearly everyone follows the formed custom of Rome that became the norm at Nicea.

Another example, most folks teach the eucharist is sacrifice (real flesh and blood), yet very few know of Blandina who was martyred for holding the opposite view and who only needed to agree with that view in order to remain alive.

So, ECFs may be very useful and many were in fact Christians who I expect one day to meet in heaven.

Martyred for a heresy? That's a new one. I think you have your story's mixed up. The real presence was an established concensus among the writings of the ECF's and you know it...

 

[laconicstudent]

Martyred for a heresy? That's a new one. The real presence was an established concensus among the writings of the ECF's and you know it...

Oh, the Blandina thing? That one's a PRATT. He refuses to acknowledge the historical context in which Blandina lived, which is that the Roman Catholics thought the early Christians were killing and eating people as part of the Eucharist. Therefore, he takes the denial of that charge as a denial of the Real Presence. Its rather silly.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

For ex;ample, Polycarp taught the Church what the apostles taught as regards what scripture says about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But nearly everyone follows the formed custom of Rome that became the norm at Nicea.

And here you're going to have to support that view with documentation.

 

[Standing Up]

Here is a link to the article I posted from:
THE LORD YAHWEH OF GLORY IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS Part 2

I scanned the article and they're arguing using scripture. I don't see anyone saying person X in year 120 saying Jesus always existed. Do you have something else or did I miss it?

 

[Standing Up]

Martyred for a heresy? That's a new one. I think you have your story's mixed up. The real presence was an established concensus among the writings of the ECF's and you know it...

Oh, the Blandina thing? That one's a PRATT. He refuses to acknowledge the historical context in which Blandina lived, which is that the Roman Catholics thought the early Christians were killing and eating people as part of the Eucharist. Therefore, he takes the denial of that charge as a denial of the Real Presence. Its rather silly.

Read it yourselves. Amongst other quotes:

For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.viii.xiii.html?highlight=blandina#highlightBlandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: “How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]?”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.viii.xiii.html

Had she agreed with her accusers, she'd have been freed.

 

[Standing Up]

And here you're going to have to support that view with documentation.

Different thread. But trust me.

Like I said, some know of some ECFs that happen to support their notions, but not of those who don't, yet who lived and died as Christians.