Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[Ortho_Cat]

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.

And it appears he was provided with the appropriate context and understanding of her martyrdom here in post #109 by someone who apparently knew better:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7514725-11/

Yet continues to spout the same lies, hoping a few readers who don't know better will take the bait. Figures.

 

[Thekla]

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?

Did you read carefully ? As I said, both sides used Scripture - the interpretation provided was not an intellectual construction.

 

[Standing Up]

And it appears he was provided with the appropriate context and understanding of her martyrdom here in post #109 by someone who apparently knew better:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7514725-11/

Yes continues to spout the same lies, hoping a few readers who don't know better will take the bait. Figures.

Yeah it's weird. First he says it is the flesh of Jesus and then he says it isn't the flesh, we're not cannibals.

In any event, other ECFs have asserted the same thing. But, not to sidetrack. The point is that ECFs may be cited saying X, but others may be cited saying Y.

What's the deciding factor? What's the rule of faith? Irenaeus cited scripture. What do you cite?

 

[Standing Up]

Did you read carefully ? As I said, both sides used Scripture - the interpretation provided was not an intellectual construction.

For the last time, do you have any tradition that supports the notion against Arius?

IOW, yes, they both used scripture. And Arius only used a portion of scripture to understand, as did the devil. But the whole of scripture presents a different picture of Christ Jesus' eternality.

So, basically, pending any Tradition that you can come up with, you're agreeing that scripture was the final rule of faith in the Arius' debate.

 

[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.

These passages from mainstay Fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils should be sufficient indications that for the Council Fathers the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was identical to the appearances of Christ the Logos without flesh to the prophets and in His human nature to the apostles. No one within the tradition, except for Augustine, ever doubted this identity of the Logos with this concrete Individual who revealed in Himself the invisible God of the Old Testament to the prophets and who became man and continued this same revelation of God's glory in and through His own human nature taken from the Virgin.

The controversy between the Orthodox and Arians/Eunomians was not about who the Logos is in the Old and New Testaments, but about what the Logos is and what His relationship is to God the Father. The Orthodox maintained that the Logos is uncreated and unchangeable having always existed from the essence or hypostasis of the Father who eternally and by nature causes His Son's existence before the Ages. The Arians and Eunomians insisted that this same Angel-Logos is a changeable creation of God who derives His existence before the Ages from non-being not by God's nature but by His will.

Thus the basic question was, did the prophets and apostles see in God's uncreated glory (Orthodox and Arians) or created energy (Eunomians) an uncreated or a created Logos, a Logos who is God by nature and has therefore all the energies and powers of God by nature or a God by grace, who has some but not all the energies of God the Father and then only by grace and not by nature. Both Orthodox and Arians/Eunomians agreed in principle that if the Logos has every power and energy of the Father by nature then He is uncreated, if not He is then a creature.

The question at issue was the experiences of revelation or glorification or theosis which God gives in His Spirit through His Logos Angel-Christ to the prophets. apostles, and saints. These experiences or these lives of saints are recorded primarily in the Bible but also in the post-biblical continuation of Pentecost in the Body of Christ, the Church. Therefore, both sides appealed to the Fathers of all ages, beginning with their lives recorded in Genesis and extending to their own day. They could not agree on the authority of the witnesses of their own time, but they did have a common ground of debate in the Old Testament and the New Testament, as well as in the earlier patristic tradition.

Thus Orthodox and heretics use both the Old and New Testaments indiscriminately in order to prove whether the prophets and apostles saw a created or uncreated divine hypostasis or person of Christ. The argumentation is simple. Both sides make a list of all the powers and energies of God recorded in the Bible. They do the same for the Angel-Logos- Only-Begotten Son. Then they compare them to see if they are identical or not. They must not be simply similar but identical.

Both Orthodox and Arians fully agreed with the inherited tradition of the Old Testament witnessed to by the apostles and saints to whom God reveals His glory in His incarnate Son that creatures cannot know the uncreated essence of God, and that between the uncreated and the created there is no similarity whatsoever. Thus, in order to prove that the Logos is a creature, the Arians argued that He knows neither the essence of God nor His own essence and is not in all respects similar to God. The Orthodox argued that the Logos does know the essence of the Father and is in every respect similar to the Father, having all that the Father has by nature except Fatherhood or the being the cause of the existence of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

THE LORD YAHWEH OF GLORY IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS Part 2


You can read on as you desire or not.


Recall, what is in the NT is mostly the "kerygma" (what is announced) whereas Tradition also includes what is lived/understood and experienced in the "interior life" of the Church. (St. Basil)

 

[Standing Up]

THE LORD YAHWEH OF GLORY IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS Part 2


You can read on as you desire or not.


Recall, what is in the NT is mostly the "kerygma" (what is announced) whereas Tradition also includes what is lived/understood and experienced in the "interior life" of the Church. (St. Basil)

" Thus Orthodox and heretics use both the Old and New Testaments indiscriminately in order to prove whether the prophets and apostles saw a created or uncreated divine hypostasis or person of Christ. "

That's it then. Sola Scriptura. The whola (all of it) scriptura.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

Would you care to rephrase that or is it just me?

 

[Montalban]

For the last time, do you have any tradition that supports the notion against Arius?

IOW, yes, they both used scripture. And Arius only used a portion of scripture to understand, as did the devil. But the whole of scripture presents a different picture of Christ Jesus' eternality.

So, basically, pending any Tradition that you can come up with, you're agreeing that scripture was the final rule of faith in the Arius' debate.

The second thread you've come here with this very welcome debunking of SS.

Your argument

Arius used scripture

"Orthodoxy" used scripture and tradition.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Yeah it's weird. First he says it is the flesh of Jesus and then he says it isn't the flesh, we're not cannibals.

In any event, other ECFs have asserted the same thing. But, not to sidetrack. The point is that ECFs may be cited saying X, but others may be cited saying Y.

What's the deciding factor? What's the rule of faith? Irenaeus cited scripture. What do you cite?

Do you think that the ressurected and glorified body of Christ is mere human flesh and blood?

 

[laconicstudent]

And it appears he was provided with the appropriate context and understanding of her martyrdom here in post #109 by someone who apparently knew better:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7514725-11/

Yet continues to spout the same lies, hoping a few readers who don't know better will take the bait. Figures.

Pretty much, anyone whose studied Roman history at all can see the glaring problem with his argument there.

 

[Thekla]

" Thus Orthodox and heretics use both the Old and New Testaments indiscriminately in order to prove whether the prophets and apostles saw a created or uncreated divine hypostasis or person of Christ. "

That's it then. Sola Scriptura.

You missed the rest of the article, and also what I posted; there is a great deal more context in which that statement is made.
That's okay, though, you can of course think what you desire to think on the matter.

If you do wish to discuss the matter in greater depth, or consider the rest of the article, or any of the rest of the statements in my post/s, let me know.

God bless +

 

[Montalban]

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.

The Invisible Church?

 

[Thekla]

I get the sense that the Scriptures (and everything else ) are read as an apologetic text, not a Spiritual text and great blessing.

 

[Standing Up]

The second thread you've come here with this very welcome debunking of SS.

Your argument

Arius used scripture

"Orthodoxy" used scripture and tradition.

Umm, we've yet to see that tradition. In fact, you too have been asked for the support. So, provide the cites.

PS. So far, in this argument, if you read the thread, its sola scripture 1 and tradition 0.

 

[Standing Up]

You missed the rest of the article, and also what I posted; there is a great deal more context in which that statement is made.
That's okay, though, you can of course think what you desire to think on the matter.

If you do wish to discuss the matter in greater depth, or consider the rest of the article, or any of the rest of the statements in my post/s, let me know.

God bless +

Just quote the ECFs for heaven's sake, please. Pretty please with sugar on top.

C'mon folks, if you got it, show it. Else, let's move on.

 

[Standing Up]

Pretty much, anyone whose studied Roman history at all can see the glaring problem with his argument there.

Do you tie the events of the Kitos War to this development? If so, how?

 

[Standing Up]

Do you think that the ressurected and glorified body of Christ is mere human flesh and blood?

1 Cor. 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

What do you think?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Yeah it's weird. First he says it is the flesh of Jesus and then he says it isn't the flesh, we're not cannibals.

In any event, other ECFs have asserted the same thing. But, not to sidetrack. The point is that ECFs may be cited saying X, but others may be cited saying Y.

What's the deciding factor? What's the rule of faith? Irenaeus cited scripture. What do you cite?

Ya, Irenaeus liked to talk alot about tradition and apostolic succession though, too:

3.1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
3.2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Wait, I know, all Irenaeus writings are forged, right?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

The Invisible Church?

I think these are the 'hidden remnants' I have heard so much about lately...

 

[Standing Up]

Here you go, folks, if this is accurate.

Arianism: Up to this point the Trinitarian debate had taken place entirely in the West. We now move to the East, where the debate became a great controversy. It lasted sixty years, involved the entire eastern church, the western church in part, and occupied the attention of eleven emperors. The long discussion began with Arius, a presbyter in the church in Alexandria. [FONT=CG Times (W1)]He was a disciple of Lucian, who in turn was a student of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch from 260 to 272[/FONT][FONT=CG Times (W1)]. Paul was an Adoptionist (Dynamic Monarchian). He taught that the Logos or Reason of God dwelt in the man Jesus. This Logos had also been in Moses and in the prophets; in Jesus, however, it was present in much larger measure. As a result, he was united with God in a relationship of love as no other man had been. Therefore, God "adopted" Jesus after his crucifixion and resurrection and gave him a sort of deity. [/FONT]
Trinity: Arius and the Nicene Creed

There's the source of Arius' teaching.

IOW, like many groups today who use tradition and scripture, Arius did too.

Sola scriptura (and tradition-tied-to-apostles), however, won out in the end.