Lotar
Swift Eagle Justice
- Feb 27, 2003
- 8,163
- 445
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Albion said:I agree. It's good when we can joke with each other and at ourselves. But scripture, I hope very much you agree, is not merely something manmade.
It is the word of God.
How can Scripture not have a basis in Scripture?
Scripture alone as the sole rule and norm of all doctrines has no basis in Scripture. Niether does the inherent individualism of the philosophy.
While reserving the right to disagree on the basic issue, I'd like to hear more about that religious order stuff. I haven't heard this before.
Look up the Waldenses. You can tack on another couple centuries next time someone says the idea is less than 500 years old.
All right, but I was speaking of Scripture and you answered about Tradition.
Scripture is Tradition. You gave a falicious argument of: Scripture is inspired, therefore sola scriptura. All Tradition is inspired by God, it is not an unique attribute of Scripture.
In what sense do you think that to be so? Would you please elaborate, since this comes up all the time.
All of the authors are members of the Church. The Bible was authored by the Church in the same sense that the Creed was authored by the Church.
That much I agree with, but does that also mean that the parts it had use of--most of what we consider scripture today--had no meaning for the Church? I don't think that is a viable argument.
I wasn't making such an argument. The entire canon was completed by the end of the first century, so making the claim that the Church survived 60 years without a complete Bible is not entirely impressive anyways.
Even if one makes the case that the canon had not been assembled yet, it is only partially true. Bishops generally had a list that they had the laity follow, and there were also general liturgical canons.
I'd agree only that something having the form of a church could and would have existed in the absence of scripture, but not the Church as Christ established it. Not without its connection to God's revelation.
Scripture is only one of God's revelations to the Church, and He never ceases to guide and reveal Himself to the Church.
That puts distance between you and the Catholics, that seems sure. But of course, Protestants and Catholics would view the expression "instruction book" differently. For the Catholics it is a put-down, just a primer, a starter kit to getting the real story through the Popes, Magisterium, Councils, and so on. For Protestants, scripture is meant to be the ultimate in a teaching tool from God to Man, that is to say, something precious and not at all what some Catholics have in mind by the comment when downplaying the importance ofg scripture.
I believe the tactic of "putting down" Scripture is foolish. Scripture is worth more than the entire collection of Fathers and councils put together.
When I get home, I'll go through my links and show you a good article that explains some of the differences, though a large part of boils down to us using a mystical aproach, and Protestants and Catholics using the scientific method.
Here's a decent article: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/scripture_study.aspx
Upvote
0