Sola Scriptura, the Pail of Orthodoxy and the living God

frogoon234 said:

If we don't meet a certain threshold of love for Jesus and love for others (i would argue any christian has atleast a minute amount of love), then what is the punishment.

Click to expand...

If someone is not becoming a loving person, the person needs to trust in Jesus to change the person. And God is not about just punishing a child of His, for not loving the way God wants. But Hebrews 12:4-14 guarantees how every child of God is being corrected. Correction brings a person to share with God in His holiness, so the person is in such a close relationship of such sharing in His holiness which is in His love. And His correction produces "the peaceable fruit of righteousness" which is in God's love, also being so personally shared with every child of God, more and more as our Father corrects us the way only He is able to correct us.

So we need, then, personal relating with God, so we are not doing some self-producing discipline using our methods which might show but they don't tell.

frogoon234 said:

how does a church or member of a church measure these things?

Click to expand...

As we grow in Christ, we grow in how He is able to measure these things. Hebrews 5:14 says we can grow in our "senses" which make us able to know things.

Maybe it is like how a little girl can just get impatient and even upset about how her mommy all the time is giving her so much attention and fussing over her and managing her and telling her things. She just can't get why Mom is always doing this. But . . . when that little girlie grows up and becomes a mom, then is when she realizes what was going on with Mommy, as she now is fussing over and caring for her little daughter. And then is when they become much more close to one another . . . now that that bigger girlie is experiencing what her mother was going through with her

So, as we grow in Jesus, we grow to discover how He has been pleasing our Father and so tenderly caring for us. We are . . . commanded . . . to do this >

"Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you." (Ephesians 4:31-32)

As we grow in Jesus and His way of loving, we become more and more "tenderhearted" like our Groom is with us. Plus, His love in us changes us so we forgive "even as God", so we in ourselves discover how kindly and caringly Jesus has been so willing to forgive us.

HTacianas said:

I'll give you an example of why sola scriptura simply doesn't work. Jesus said:

Jhn 6:53 - ... “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

That is the origin of the Christian belief that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ. Paul confirms that belief in his letter to the Corinthians:

1Co 10:16 - The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Yet there are numerous people in this forum who deny that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.

Either it is or it is not. Based on sola scriptura, what is truth?

Click to expand...

Surely by now you know that you're critiquing solo scriptura, and not sola scriptura?

HTacianas said:

I'll give you an example of why sola scriptura simply doesn't work. Jesus said:

Jhn 6:53 - ... “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

That is the origin of the Christian belief that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ. Paul confirms that belief in his letter to the Corinthians:

1Co 10:16 - The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Yet there are numerous people in this forum who deny that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.

Either it is or it is not. Based on sola scriptura, what is truth?

Click to expand...

Based on sola scriptura, the bread and wine of communion are in fact the Body and Blood of Christ. However, since Scripture does not directly tell us how Christ is present in the visible, any ideas as to how this is so (whether the Catholic view of transubstantiation or the Lutheran view of "in, with, and under") are simply theories. What matters is that we understand that He is present.

Protestant views on what exactly sola scriptura means varies, but it should be noted that, at least as initially understood, it does not exclude tradition entirely. While all of the necessities for salvation are outlined in Scripture and while Scripture can be used to interpret itself, tradition, as Protestants have historically understood it, is meant to clarify the teachings of Scripture. Anglicans in particular hold a high view of the teachings of the early church. Because of this, some people think prima scriptura is a more apt description of the doctrine: As Scripture is inspired, it is set above tradition, but we should not discount the importance of tradition altogether.

Ken Rank said:

The bible says God is a rock... can we go outside, pick him up in a field, and worship him? No... why? Because it is a metaphor. The bible calls Jesus a lamb... but he lacks 4 legs, a tail and fur. Literal? No... in both cases we have a literal object being used in an abstract manner to give us a picture of God's greatness or work. So when Jesus, in his body and sitting on a chair, holds up a cup of wine and claims it is his blood BEFORE his blood was shed... then why do we take that literally? I don't care that you do.... but don't assume that because you have reached another conclusion that it means others don't take the bible seriously or as their sole source of answers relating to God and His will. I mean, I could do the same and direct it at you... and insist that, since you take the blood cup literally... that to be consistent you need to take the rock or lamb literally. But I know better. I am hoping you do too. I am not in rebellion because I don't take the cup as literally his blood... because he held it up before he shed any blood and was in his body when he held up the bread and said it was his body. I see it, clearly, as a memorial and that the work is done and THAT WORK is what is memorialized in the pictures presented in the bread and wine. I don't see it as a repeating event week after week.

I am not in rebellion, I have simply drawn a different conclusion based on reasons I shared above. The bible is full of metaphors... and I see this as another. I love God... if He shows me different, I will accept it.

Click to expand...

A decent argument. However, the context of the rest of the Gospel of John clues us in that Jesus is in fact being literal in John 6.

In John 3, when Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born again, Nicodemus voices his confusion. Jesus then proceeds to clarify that "born again" is a metaphor for salvation.

In John 6, however, Jesus does no such thing after telling the crowd "I am the bread of life" (John 6:48). In John 6:52, the crowd of Jews gathered to listen to Jesus express their confusion—"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"—and Jesus instead repeats Himself in more detail—"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and by blood is real drink" (John 6:54-55).

Another context clue is the reaction the crowd has when Jesus repeats Himself—they leave, saying, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (John 6:60b). Since we are told the crowd was made of practicing Jews, who by religious law were forbidden to consume blood, they likely understood that this was not a metaphor.

One could argue that this was not how John meant this passage to be interpreted, particularly since it is set prior to the Last Supper, but I do not think that is a particularly strong argument. John's student, Ignatius of Antioch, understood the visible elements of communion to be the literal Body and Blood of Christ as well. Arguably, if Ignatius was wrong, John would have corrected him.

I don't think you came to the conclusion you did because you don't take the Bible seriously, and I don't think you are less saved than me for being a memorialist. I also don't pretend to know how it is possible for the bread and wine to literally be Christ's flesh and blood prior to His own body being broken and His own blood being shed. I just don't think, based on biblical and historical context, that your interpretation is correct.

HTacianas said:

Schisms in the Church have had very little to do with the bible. The greatest and earliest schisms have more to do with language than any real differences of opinion.

The means of salvation and the sacraments are agreed on even among schismatics. The meaning of the bible is agreed on among the original Churches. There is no need in reinterpreting its meaning.

Click to expand...

Both 451ad & 1054ad schisms were doctrinal which would fall under your understanding of Holy Tradition.

frogoon234 said:

I believe it is with in the pail of orthodoxy to on some level have a relationship with the living God. We can argue about what that exactly means.

Sola Scriptura is important especially in an online forum and even in a physical church. For the former because we don't know each other's personalities. In the latter because christians on some level should conform to their brothers and sisters.

However it is a common idea in the Pail of Orthodoxy that we should experience to some degree or on some level a real relationship with Jesus Christ (who is the living God).

Questions or comments?

Click to expand...

According to Aquinas, faith is that relationship; it's the "knowledge of God" that Jesus came to reveal and restore to man, Adam having forfeited and lost it in Eden to humanity. It's a supernatural gift, to know God in an immediate way, even if only partly in this life as a "dim foretaste" as its been said:
"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." 1 Cor 13:`12

It's the fulfillment of the New Covenant prophecy of Jer 31:34 concerning direct knowledge of God, surpassing knowledge about God only:
"No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD."

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

Communion with God is the purpose of faith. It's the essence of man's justice and the chief difference between the Old & New Covenants. Man was made for it.

frogoon234 said:

Right wrong or indifferent i don't believe or follow everything Aquinas said. I'm certainly not saying he wasn't a christian.

Click to expand...

Oh, sure, like anyone he could be wrong and he could be right. Even the RCC doesn't accept everything he taught. Anyway, we should look at the words and judge their truthfulness for ourselves rather than judging based on the source. And his input only involved the very first part of my post either way and he's certainly not the only theologian or believer who's voiced that opinion incidentally.

frogoon234 said:

I believe alot of christians have seen miracles and (myself included) even had encounters with the divine (Holy Spirit and Angels of God). Some have even encountered Jesus in the flesh. I don't believe a christian's walk with Jesus/God is confined to faith. That is what i got from your initial statement.

Click to expand...

No, not at all. And Aquinas, BTW, would agree with you-he's one who claimed to have a very profound experience in fact-so profound that he actually quit writing afterwards-and his output up to then was prodigious to put it mildly. Such experiences are part of Church legacy going back to the beginning. But my point was that even the regular faith of a Christian has elements of that supernatural encounter.

HTacianas said:

Can you find someone who lived within the first one thousand years of Christian history who agrees with you?

Click to expand...

Cyril of Jerusalem.

HTacianas said:

When you see all of that, I see two thousand years of Christian history unanimous in its belief regarding the Eucharist. It's more than a little late for a layman to decide something different.

Click to expand...

4. Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood, ye have no life in you. They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh.

5. In the Old Testament also there was shew-bread; but this, as it belonged to the Old Testament, has come to an end; but in the New Testament there is Bread of heaven, and a Cup of salvation, sanctifying soul and body; for as the Bread corresponds to our body, so is the Word appropriate to our soul.



Cyril of Jerusalem. (1894). Five. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), R. W. Church & E. H. Gifford (Trans.), S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen (Vol. 7, pp. 151–152). New York: Christian Literature Company.


Hmm. If you read the whole section Cyril sounds more like the Reformed doctrine of the Real Presence. I would be careful using the word Unanimous when dealing with the early church.

Athanasius377 said:

Cyril of Jerusalem.


4. Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood, ye have no life in you. They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh.

5. In the Old Testament also there was shew-bread; but this, as it belonged to the Old Testament, has come to an end; but in the New Testament there is Bread of heaven, and a Cup of salvation, sanctifying soul and body; for as the Bread corresponds to our body, so is the Word appropriate to our soul.



Cyril of Jerusalem. (1894). Five. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), R. W. Church & E. H. Gifford (Trans.), S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen (Vol. 7, pp. 151–152). New York: Christian Literature Company.


Hmm. If you read the whole section Cyril sounds more like the Reformed doctrine of the Real Presence. I would be careful using the word Unanimous when dealing with the early church.

Click to expand...

"Reformed":

"Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.

-"Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 6]"

"`I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, etc. [1 Cor. 11:23]'. This teaching of the Blessed Paul is alone sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, which when ye are vouchsafed, ye are of (the same body) [Eph 3:6] and blood with Christ. For he has just distinctly said, (That our Lord Jesus Christ the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood.) [1 Cor. 2:23-25] Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?

-"Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 1]

"After this you hear the singing which invites you with a divine melody to the Communion of the Holy Mysteries, and which says, 'Taste and see that the Lord is good.' Do not trust to the judgement of the bodily palate - no, but to unwavering faith. For they who are urged to taste do not taste of bread and wine, but to the antitype, of the Body and Blood of Christ."

-"Mystagogic Catecheses 5 23, 20 ca. 350 A.D

nonaeroterraqueous said:

You make a good point. It should be noted that Christ replaced one commemorative event with another. It was the crucifixion and resurrection that were the notable events, not the communion, which was commemorative of it. In the same way the Seder, which communion replaced, was commemorative of the much more remarkable event of the Exodus. I don't think anyone who was there when Jesus presented it expected or believed that anything akin to transubstantiation was taking place. The event had always been commemorative, and it remained so.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. We eat from the Lamb of God who is a substitute for us, no one but Gnostics believed that the Body and Blood of Jesus were present in the Eucharist until 1500, even Luther believed in it.

frogoon234 said:

I believe it is with in the pail of orthodoxy to on some level have a relationship with the living God. We can argue about what that exactly means.

Sola Scriptura is important especially in an online forum and even in a physical church. For the former because we don't know each other's personalities. In the latter because christians on some level should conform to their brothers and sisters.

However it is a common idea in the Pail of Orthodoxy that we should experience to some degree or on some level a real relationship with Jesus Christ (who is the living God).

Questions or comments?

Click to expand...

sola scripture only works in a post-printing press vacuum and it really isn't that responsible prior to that. scripture simply wasn't available enough and "sola-church" would have been the best MO.

What is the pail of orthodoxy? A google search turns up a video and this forum thread.

Athanasius377 said:

Cyril of Jerusalem.


4. Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood, ye have no life in you. They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh.

5. In the Old Testament also there was shew-bread; but this, as it belonged to the Old Testament, has come to an end; but in the New Testament there is Bread of heaven, and a Cup of salvation, sanctifying soul and body; for as the Bread corresponds to our body, so is the Word appropriate to our soul.



Cyril of Jerusalem. (1894). Five. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), R. W. Church & E. H. Gifford (Trans.), S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen (Vol. 7, pp. 151–152). New York: Christian Literature Company.


Hmm. If you read the whole section Cyril sounds more like the Reformed doctrine of the Real Presence. I would be careful using the word Unanimous when dealing with the early church.

Click to expand...

The quote you are using above is off point. He isn't saying that the Eucharist is not the flesh and blood of Christ, but only that the Jews thought he meant to eat his physical body at that time. Cyril taught, just as all the Church Fathers unanimously taught, that the brrad and wine become the body and blood of Christ when blessed. From the Catechism of Cyril:

7. Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.

8. Then, after the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless service, is completed, over that sacrifice of propitiation we entreat God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world ; for kings; for soldiers and allies; for the sick; for the afflicted; and, in a word, for all who stand in need of succour we all pray and offer this sacrifice.

CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lecture 23 (Cyril of Jerusalem)