Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[Ortho_Cat]

Paul, for example, was able to distinguish between 'thus sayeth the LORD' and 'this is my recommendation'.

Some folks seem to think they can "improve upon the apostles".

Nope, we just want to make sure that all they taught is faithfully preserved and handed down.

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them ina the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,</SPAN> 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.&#8221;</SPAN>

 

[Hentenza]

Nope, we just want to make sure that all they taught is faithfully preserved and handed down.

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them ina the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,</SPAN> 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”</SPAN>

But ALL that they taught is not faithfully preserved since all tradition plus scripture churches "preserve" different teachings.

 

[Philothei]

It's pretty easy for people to see who the false teachers are... except for those who follow them.

It that was true thought we would not have "unorthodox" Christian theololgy and unfortunately we have. How that would be avoided?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

But ALL that they taught is not faithfully preserved since all tradition plus scripture churches "preserve" different teachings.

Yes, this is true, but certainly one can be more faithful than another. I think what it comes down to is comparing side-by-side all the teachings from all the churches which claim to be apostolic, comparing them with the predominant teachings of the ECF's, history, and scripture, and find which of the traditions most closely align with all of these.

 

[ivebeenshown]

But ALL that they taught is not faithfully preserved since all "tradition plus scripture churches" "preserve" different teachings.

This is a logical fallacy. It's like saying "No religion has the truth since all religions teach different 'truths.'"

 

[Hentenza]

This is a logical fallacy. It's like saying "No religion has the truth since all religions teach different 'truths.'"

It is the same "fallacy" that you guys accuse SS proponents of so what is good for the geese is good for the gander. lol

However, you can not refute it so the statement that any one denomination has preserved all apostolic truth is not accurate.

 

[Hentenza]

Yes, this is true, but certainly one can be more faithful than another. I think what it comes down to is comparing side-by-side all the teachings from all the churches which claim to be apostolic, comparing them with the predominant teachings of the ECF's, history, and scripture, and find which of the traditions most closely align with all of these.

Which one 'seems" to align "better" with predominant teachings of the ECFs, history, and scripture is subjective when the bar is continually moving. The scriptures don't move. "T"raditions do.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Which one 'seems" to align "better" with predominant teachings of the ECFs, history, and scripture is subjective when the bar is continually moving. The scriptures don't move. "T"raditions do.

Well history certainly hasn't moved, but it is debatable whether scripture (i.e. what we Christians consider scripture) has shifted over time. For example, 1 Clement was considered scriptural by some, and the deutero's were considered (and still are considered) scriptural by many (and likewise rejected as scripture by many). So I think this concept of scripture is dynamic, even though all the writings are there. Also, this says nothing about potential discrepancies between the original manuscripts (which we don't have) and the manuscript copies that we do have.

But again, the bar I'm speaking of is scripture, history, and writings of ECF's. Tradition is compared to these standards.

 

[Philothei]

It is the same "fallacy" that you guys accuse SS proponents of so what is good for the geese is good for the gander. lol

However, you can not refute it so the statement that any one denomination has preserved all apostolic truth is not accurate.

But what is that "apostolicity" that makes it soooo important Henry? if one does not believe in it I see no use to insist to have it KWIM. It is like the true presence. Some do not beleive in it. Very well... I see that this is their take on the Eucarist...But to insist that it is not threre because you do not believe in it is what I truly have a hard time understanding...

If AS is NOT important by the ways the EO or RC standards are set why would that be a problem for the Protestant Chruches?

Does this makes sense?

 

[Hentenza]

Well history certainly hasn't moved, but it is debatable whether scripture (i.e. what we Christians consider scripture) has shifted over time. For example, 1 Clement was considered scriptural by some, and the deutero's were considered (and still are considered) scriptural by many (and likewise rejected as scripture by many). So I think this concept of scripture is dynamic, even though all the writings are there. Also, this says nothing about potential discrepancies between the original manuscripts (which we don't have) and the manuscript copies that we do have.

Well, we can probably spend hours debating the reasons why the deuterocanon and 1 Clement is not inspired text but that would still be irrelevant to the discussion since all of our bibles have the same NT.

BTW- There are no potential discrepancies between the originals and the extant mss. We have 100% of the original text, just not the original papyri. That includes both the OT and NT. However, we don't have any of the "T"raditions in any form that could be remotely considered as a standard. Absolute truth can not be dynamic or it would not be absolute. The scriptures are absolute truth. They are not dynamic. God is fully aware of His special revelation.


But again, the bar I'm speaking of is scripture, history, and writings of ECF's. Tradition is compared to these standards.[/quote]

 

[ivebeenshown]

It is the same "fallacy" that you guys accuse SS proponents of

Please use an example to support your claim.

(I would not say that "no one church has an infallible interpretation of scripture because all of the churches have conflicting interpretations." Just like I would not say "no one religion has the infallible truth about God because all of the religions have conflicting teachings about God."

However, you can not refute it

I did refute it by pointing out how it is a fallacious statement. "A =! B therefore both A and B = false" is fallacious because when A = Jesus is God and B = Zeus is God, A is still true.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

. However, we don't have any of the "T"raditions in any form that could be remotely considered as a standard. Absolute truth can not be dynamic or it would not be absolute. The scriptures are absolute truth. They are not dynamic. God is fully aware of His special revelation.

I would say that tradition in the form of the ecumenical councils (which contains the creed), the writings of the fathers, and church history are quite static. These writings, events, happened and were recorded and preserved, just as scripture was. We can use these static sources to compare tradition against and see which traditions align most faithfully with them. Also, I could argue that the ecumenical councils are a form of special revelation as well (with a scriptural precedent).

 

[Hentenza]

Please use an example to support your claim.

(I would not say that "no one church has an infallible interpretation of scripture because all of the churches have conflicting interpretations." Just like I would not say "no one religion has the infallible truth about God because all of the religions have conflicting teachings about God."

I did refute it by pointing out how it is a fallacious statement. "A =! B therefore both A and B = false" is fallacious because when A = Jesus is God and B = Zeus is God, A is still true.

Here is the way your side's argument goes. No two SS denominations agree on scripture interpretation, therefore, SS can not be true.

Here is how the SS side argument goes. No two "T"radition plus scripture denominations agree on the same "T"raditions, therefore, "T"radition plus scripture can not be true.

So I will posit ro you that the ONLY common denomination accepted by ALL mainstream Christian churches is the 66 books of scripture, therefore, since God is perfectly capable of maintaining His special revelation, then this must be the standard. The rest is just fallible man's interpretation and irrelevant to God's absolute truth.

 

[Philothei]

Originally Posted by Hentenza

. However, we don't have any of the "T"raditions in any form that could be remotely considered as a standard. Absolute truth can not be dynamic or it would not be absolute. The scriptures are absolute truth. They are not dynamic. God is fully aware of His special revelation.
​

What do you mean by "dynamic" like hmmm... they do not allow for futhrer exploration? Not sure what you say here...

 

[Hentenza]

I would say that tradition in the form of the ecumenical councils (which contains the creed), the writings of the fathers, and church history are quite static. These writings, events, happened and were recorded and preserved, just as scripture was. We can use these static sources to compare tradition against and see which traditions align most faithfully with them. Also, I could argue that the ecumenical councils are a form of special revelation as well (with a scriptural precedent).

The councils, ECFs, etc. are not infallible since they contradict themselves quite often. The scriptures, on the other hand, are indeed infallible and do not contradict themselves. The authority standard seems quite obvious to me.

 

[Philothei]

So I will posit ro you that the ONLY common denomination accepted by ALL mainstream Christian churches is the 66 books of scripture, therefore, since God is perfectly capable of maintaining His special revelation, then this must be the standard. The rest is just fallible man's interpretation and irrelevant to God's absolute truth.

? Are we in dissagreement even on the number of books? I thought the original canon was replace in the west (???) could be wrong though....

 

[Hentenza]

What do you mean by "dynamic" like hmmm... they do not allow for futhrer exploration? Not sure what you say here...

Dynamic refers to something that continually changes. Not static. Scriptures are static and are not dynamic since there can only be one meaning and that is the one given by the author. The text does not itself change. What is dynamic is our interpretations of it simply because of hermeunetic additions such as preconceived bias, etc. We have a tendency of ignoring the revealed reality in favor of our perceived realities.

 

[Philothei]

The councils, ECFs, etc. are not infallible since they contradict themselves quite often. The scriptures, on the other hand, are indeed infallible and do not contradict themselves. The authority standard seems quite obvious to me.

I understand and we as EO would not call the Councils "inffalable" either that is not how we place them as authority. Proof to that is that the iconoclastic Contraversy had to denouce a council as false So we do not attempt to idiolize them

The Scripure has authority in the EO and respected for what it is. But nevertheless the interpretation of it is "not left to individuals" who do not have the experience of the interpretation of the consciousness of ALL the Chruch thus far.... When an EO reads the Bible and notes a conflict he does seek what the ECFs have said on this peticular passage. The councils (example arius contraversy) had dealt already with certain confilcts that can arise from the Bible. The "commentaries" are sources to help someone not to go astray in that interpretation. The Holy Tradition is thus a guide to interpretation. Not wishing to missguide but to "allign" the interpretaion to the "ortho -doxa" right dogma; based on the Church's experince dealign with any kinds of diviations.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

So I will posit ro you that the ONLY common denomination accepted by ALL mainstream Christian churches is the 66 books of scripture, therefore, since God is perfectly capable of maintaining His special revelation, then this must be the standard. The rest is just fallible man's interpretation and irrelevant to God's absolute truth.

This universal acceptance of the 66 books is not entirely true; for one the ACOE only accepts 22 NT books as authoritative, and they are apostolic in origin. There may be another denomination who doesn't accept the entire NT, but I don't remember...

 

[Philothei]

Dynamic refers to something that continually changes. Not static. Scriptures are static and are not dynamic since there can only be one meaning and that is the one given by the author. The text does not itself change. What is dynamic is our interpretations of it simply because of hermeunetic additions such as preconceived bias, etc. We have a tendency of ignoring the revealed reality in favor of our perceived realities.

Ah...I see thus what is static in the Bible is what is ..the revealed reality. I think that would be indeed one fo the problems with interpretation then... How to stay true to the revealed message if one does not use a guide and takes it out of its historical context. Of couse the time you need to take to do all this ...is immense considering our full schedules today

It does makes sense to have trustworthy theologians or the Fathers to guide you through all this instead of any each one of us trying to navigate trhough this... I think that if we exclude the motivation in interpretation by the one who comments then we are pretty safe to say that the interpretation should be bull's eye...

A man of prayer such as a monk who his only care is how to live a glorious life in Chrst cannot but have good motives IMHO...That pretty much would cover the ECF