Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[Ortho_Cat]

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?

Whew, ok, just making sure...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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.

bible.ca eh? I wouldn't believe 1+1=2 if they had it on their site.

 

[Thekla]

Look back into the disputation with Paul of Samosata:

He aroused controversy with his Monarchianist teachings. In 269, seventy bishops, priests and deacons assembled at Antioch as a synod. They deposed Paul as bishop and elected Dominus as his successor. They also wrote an encyclical letter to Dionysius and Maximus, bishops of Rome and Alexandria respectively. This letter is the only indisputably contemporary document concerning him and was preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea's Ecclesiastical History.[2]

Paul of Samosata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Anoetos]

bible.ca eh? I wouldn't believe 1+1=2 if they had it on their site.

Now That we know what you think about people you've never met, maybe you could tell us if you believe what was posted is accurate.

 

[Standing Up]

Look back into the disputation with Paul of Samosata:

Paul of Samosata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could take Montalban's tack and simply stop at the fact that tradition taught wrong, but where would that leave us?

Though Paul of S and Arius didn't agree, what corrected them? A different tradition or scripture?

 

[Thekla]

I could take Montalban's tack and simply stop at the fact that tradition taught wrong, but where would that leave us?

Though Paul of S and Arius didn't agree, what corrected them? A different tradition or scripture?

Scripture didn't; Arius and Paul of S used Scripture.
Tradition identified their "misunderstanding" of Scripture.
If there is no repentance, there is no correction.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I guess I don't see what the point of contention is here. Is someone trying to assert that the First Council of Nicea was decided by scripture alone? I thought the church had long fallen into corruption by then, at least according to most protestants i've heard...

but wait, the council does affirm things like the Trinity, which protestants agree with. So they have to somehow justify how the council was valid without relying on tradition...ok I think i'm up to speed now...

I am curious about one other thing, though. Do protestants think that the council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts was decided by scripture also?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

excuse my ninja-editing...i'm a master of the art...

 

[sunlover1]

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.

Let's say it this way.
If we give Scripture.. GOD's inspired words, sole norming authority,
then we check everything against what does God say. HMM...
The devil IS a liar, nothing new under the sun.

It sounds kind of like...
That mean old devil twists scripture, shoot, now what will we use?
(as if he's limited to ONLY twisting Scripture and nothing else?)

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

[/quote]
Have NO idea how you reach such, but
it's quite absurd from this side of the screen.

 

[Thekla]

Let's say it this way.
If we give Scripture.. GOD's inspired words, sole norming authority,
then we check everything against what does God say. HMM...
The devil IS a liar, nothing new under the sun.

It sounds kind of like...
That mean old devil twists scripture, shoot, now what will we use?
(as if he's limited to ONLY twisting Scripture and nothing else?)

I guess you could call Satan mean (at least in the older usage, of small-hearted), but I don't think the summary is actually representative.

And it could be considered that Scripture has always been used to support or "prove" heresy, and has always been used aright as well.

Consider it maybe this way - many Christians have received (it's been handed over to) the tradition of Scripture and Sola Scriptura. IE this is what is received, this is what is used. This is not the entirety of what has been received by the EO, however. In this sense, I understand your perspective.

The summary also seems to assume that the Holy Scriptures are not important, not authoritative in the EO and this is clearly a misunderstanding - as it is not factual. We may not embrace the praxis of Sola Scriptura, but this is not the same as diminishing the authority of Scripture.

GOD's inspired words, sole norming authority,
then we check everything against what does God say

Yes, we check, but Jesus Christ is the sole norming authority; Arius's interpretation of the Holy Scriptures was in error when normed against the truth of the person of Jesus Christ - what had been received.

If we "confine" God to what is stated in the Scriptures, then we indeed make Scripture the authority instead of He who inspired the Scriptures and Whom the Scriptures testify.

No text can exhaustively represent any human person, much less the Godman Jesus Christ. We cannot even begin to truly conceptualize God. The act of reading itself is a conceptual act, not a relational act. One can begin of course to mistake the conceptual for the relational; not that this always happens.

If Scripture alone were sufficient, there was no need for Christ to come as the Godman - among us. Christ is a person, and a person is more than the teachings on record.

Have NO idea how you reach such, but
it's quite absurd from this side of the screen.

If you have any particular questions from the posts where I describe this in further detail (which I mentioned to you earlier), feel free to let me know; I'll do the best I can to explain. I think a general re-statement would not be helpful, as the original was not. I'll leave this up to you, yea or nay

 

[sunlover1]

I guess you could call Satan mean (at least in the older usage, of small-hearted), but I don't think the summary is actually representative.

And it could be considered that Scripture has always been used to support or "prove" heresy, and has always been used aright as well.

Consider it maybe this way - many Christians have received (it's been handed over to) the tradition of Scripture and Sola Scriptura. IE this is what is received, this is what is used. This is not the entirety of what has been received by the EO, however. In this sense, I understand your perspective.

The summary also seems to assume that the Holy Scriptures are not important, not authoritative in the EO and this is clearly a misunderstanding - as it is not factual. We may not embrace the praxis of Sola Scriptura, but this is not the same as diminishing the authority of Scripture.


Yes, we check, but Jesus Christ is the sole norming authority; Arius's interpretation of the Holy Scriptures was in error when normed against the truth of the person of Jesus Christ - what had been received.

If we "confine" God to what is stated in the Scriptures, then we indeed make Scripture the authority instead of He who inspired the Scriptures and Whom the Scriptures testify.

No text can exhaustively represent any human person, much less the Godman Jesus Christ. We cannot even begin to truly conceptualize God. The act of reading itself is a conceptual act, not a relational act. One can begin of course to mistake the conceptual for the relational; not that this always happens.

If Scripture alone were sufficient, there was no need for Christ to come as the Godman - among us. Christ is a person, and a person is more than the teachings on record.


If you have any particular questions from the posts where I describe this in further detail (which I mentioned to you earlier), feel free to let me know; I'll do the best I can to explain. I think a general re-statement would not be helpful, as the original was not. I'll leave this up to you, yea or nay

Oh no. I have seen the posts.
You say it over and again and evidently you believe that makes it a fact.
I completely understand how you feel about SS and I also
understand why.
I continue to post responses to your interesting ideas not so much
for you, (been there done that) but for those who are interested in
both sides of the story, for lurkers and for the sake of the babes.

Carry on.

 

[Montalban]

Oh no. I have seen the posts.
You say it over and again and evidently you believe that makes it a fact.
I completely understand how you feel about SS and I also
understand why.
I continue to post responses to your interesting ideas not so much
for you, (been there done that) but for those who are interested in
both sides of the story, for lurkers and for the sake of the babes.

Carry on.

I suppose I could just not trust some because I don't and rely on some things because I do, too

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Hey sola scriptura fans, check out this verse I just came across:

James:

2Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, 3knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 4And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

So as it turns out, perseverance is what we've all been after all along. We don't need anything else except this, because as you can see, by gaining it we will become perfect and complete, lacking in nothing! How much stronger language is this than even the verse used in 2 Timothy!

16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

So as it turns out, scripture equipped us by giving us this passage in James, so that we can finally achieve perseverance and become perfect! And how do we get perseverance? By facing trials and having our faith tried! What better way to accomplish this than by arguing in GT and constantly have people attacking each other's faith? How ironic it is that the key to our salvation lay in very book which Luther affectionately called an "epistle of straw"!

 

[Montalban]

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.

Aside from you ignoring (or you may have missed) the biblical proofs used by Arians, you've still got a problem here.

You claim Lucian to be the source of Arius' error.

What was the source of Lucian's error?

Got the idea of the problem?

 

[Montalban]

excuse my ninja-editing...i'm a master of the art...

Is that why the hairs on the back of my neck were standing up?

 

[Montalban]

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

Which biblical verses were used to authorise the Ecumenical Council being called for by Constantine?

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

When do you get your contacts?

 

[Timothew]

I am curious about one other thing, though. Do protestants think that the council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts was decided by scripture also?

Let's look it up and see, OK
Acts 15:13-18 (and part of 19)

After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me. “Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. “With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,

‘AFTER THESE THINGS I will return,
AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN,
AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS,
AND I WILL RESTORE IT,
SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD,
AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,’ SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.
“Therefore it is my judgment. . .

The council in Jerusalem looked into scripture and decided from scripture what should be done.

 

[Thekla]

Oh no. I have seen the posts.
You say it over and again and evidently you believe that makes it a fact.
I completely understand how you feel about SS and I also
understand why.
I continue to post responses to your interesting ideas not so much
for you, (been there done that) but for those who are interested in
both sides of the story, for lurkers and for the sake of the babes.

Carry on.

Sorry to be repetitive - didn't realize I was that much.
I didn't repeat to "make it true", but no counterarguments were made; usually where there is disagreement a discussion ensues.
In discussion, both sides are more accurately represented allowing for a fuller understanding as the matter is plumbed to a greater depth; no questions on what I've explained, though.
Here, for example, there is a persistent assumption that EO do not consider the Holy Scriptures important - which is patently false.

So I will ask you:
how do Sola Scriptura adherents assure that their interpretation reflects the truth of Jesus Christ,
not only His verbal teachings but His personhood ?

 

[ivebeenshown]

The council in Jerusalem looked into scripture and decided from scripture what should be done.

Nobody is saying scripture is unimportant, or that it should not be turned to. The council in Jerusalem was clearly Spirit-led in their interpretation. Today, however, there are so many interpretations which conflict -- that is not the work of the Spirit.

 

[Standing Up]

Back to Arius for a moment.

We can trace his tradition back 2 stages to Paul of Samosata (sic?). From where did Paul S get his ideas? Not sure at this point.

Later with Arius, in addition to tradition, he tried to also use scripture. Basically, this is how groups like RC and EO try to support their doctrines and practices.

So, two things.

One, if we trace Arius' teaching backward, at this point we know we end up with a priest, not an apostle.

Two, the fact that Arius later tried to bolster his position with scripture, simply strengthens scripture's claim to be the rule of faith and practice. IOW, without scripture, Arius wouldn't even get a hearing. Again, this is why EO and RC so intently at least try to 'connect' their doctrines/beliefs also. (Not making a comment on the veracity of their doctrines/beliefs, just their rule (tradition and scripture, rather than scripture and apostle-tied tradition)).

Hope that helps.