Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Albion]

I'm non-denominational but after studying scripture and church history I've come to agree with many Catholic and Orthodox teachings such as Christ being present in the Eucharist.

In response to Constantine's comment and in order that there not be any misrepresenting of your position, what Catholic and/or Orthodox teachings do you DISagree with?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

In response to Constantine's comment and in order that there not be any misrepresenting of your position, what Catholic and/or Orthodox teachings do you DISagree with?

I think he's not sure yet. If he were, he would have joined one or the other.

 

[JacksBratt]

Based on those, you are attacking something that is NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.

You said:The fact is that sin that has not yet been confessed cannot be forgiven,

Now you are saying: You think that in order to be forgiven, I believe you must go to Confession. I have told you three times this is not true.

Do you not see any reason here for me to be confused?
Can you clear this up for me? What other way can you be forgiven then? What happens to you when you die and have sins that have not been forgiven?
These are legitimate questions. They are not meant to anger you.

You ridiculed me for saying that "at the time of your salvation, your past present and future sins are immediately forgiven."

So, let's forget the whole confession thing, as it seems to be a sticking point here.

How can you face your savior, at the time of your death, if you have not had time to have your most recent sins forgiven before your death?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The canons of Trullo are binding in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It also shows how most Protestants don't know what the term "canonical" means in the Eastern Church. Every canon of the eastern Church makes clear that books such as Baruch are canonical (official in every list and canon except in the protestant bible) as it is read in liturgy, but in the Byzantine church Revelation is not canonical as it is not officially read in liturgy. Canons 59&60 of Laodicea, as well as the lists of Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilocius, Cyril of Jerusalem makes this all clear. In the Eastern church "canonical scripture" only refers to books incorporated into its worship it does not denote that some are semi scripture and others superscripture.

Well it's not read in Liturgy because it didn't make the cut when the Liturgical readings were assembled, since it was contentious at that time, but it's more or less accepted as divinely inspired today, and has been since the Middle Ages, although it wasn't generally bound with the rest of the Bible until after the advent of the printing press.

 

[redleghunter]

You are correct that Catholics believe what the catechism teaches and consider scripture the highest authority. One thing I really like about the catholic church is they don't subject the word of God to man-made traditions like we see in Protestantism where God's word is always subordinate to the Protestant's faith alone tradition. Whenever scripture says works are necessary for justification, Protestants dismiss, ignore, reinterpret, explain away, and reject the scriptural teaching in favor of their tradition.

I am happy you acknowledge the authority of Holy Scriptures.

 

[redleghunter]

I notice you make lots of claims but never provide any evidence to support them. I wonder why.

It's a fact. Chart of various OT canons provided twice up thread:

http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/biblica...storically-held-canons-of-different-churches/

 

[redleghunter]

Irrelevant.

It's quite relevant. Did Athanasius quote Scriptures or not?

 

[Albion]

I think he's not sure yet. If he were, he would have joined one or the other.

Well, you thought he'd taken a Protestant position on something or other. I don't recall that happening, so that's why I asked.

My memory is of him giving strictly Roman Catholic answers to every issue debated around here, even while he claims that the EO and RC teach the same thing and that he is persuaded by both of the communions.

 

[redleghunter]

They relied on Tradition alone.

Really? Show some of the traditions quoted.

 

[redleghunter]

Then why are you dissing Protestants, since you are a Protestant Christian?

Could be SSPX.

 

[Albion]

Could be SSPX.

It is best for us not to guess too much, but when our friend says that he's non-denominational, I don't think that means he's a non-denominational Protestant in the sense of belonging to the typical crypto-Baptist "non-denominational" congregation like we find in every town. I got the impression that it meant something like "uncommitted" or "unaffiliated."

 

[buzuxi02]

Well it's not read in Liturgy because it didn't make the cut when the Liturgical readings were assembled, since it was contentious at that time, but it's more or less accepted as divinely inspired today, and has been since the Middle Ages, although it wasn't generally bound with the rest of the Bible until after the advent of the printing press.

yes, but it is still uncanonical as the very (eastern) definition of the term 'canonical scripture' can only mean books read in liturgy. St Athanasius 39th festal epistle is the only eastern Father to include Revelation but makes clear that the Church sanctions other books to be read by laity. He makes clear that canonical scripture does NOT imply some are divinely inspired texts while others are less inspired, its only an adjective to describe texts incorporated in official liturgy. Hence Revelation is non-canonical, deuterocanonical or 'worthy to be read' just like Clement's epistles or the Didache (also approved in the 85 canons) or however you would like to label them. Notice how the book of Baruch is totally canonical in both east and west since forever but protestant bibles place it as deuterocanonical.

 

[sculleywr]

You said:The fact is that sin that has not yet been confessed cannot be forgiven,

Now you are saying: You think that in order to be forgiven, I believe you must go to Confession. I have told you three times this is not true.

Do you not see any reason here for me to be confused?
Can you clear this up for me? What other way can you be forgiven then? What happens to you when you die and have sins that have not been forgiven?
These are legitimate questions. They are not meant to anger you.

You ridiculed me for saying that "at the time of your salvation, your past present and future sins are immediately forgiven."

So, let's forget the whole confession thing, as it seems to be a sticking point here.

How can you face your savior, at the time of your death, if you have not had time to have your most recent sins forgiven before your death?

What I said was "whatever has not yet been confessed has not yet been forgiven." What you read, however, is "whatever has not been confessed in the presence of an elder is not yet forgiven."

See, when you add to what I say, you confuse yourself. Had you taken a look at the evening prayer rule I sent you, which is excerpted from the Jordanville Prayer Book, the most well-known Orthodox Prayer Book with prayers for just about ever need we run into in life, you would have noticed several phrases in our personal prayer rule which is prayed in the privacy of our personal prayer corner, with the only witnesses being family, in most cases. Here are a few of them, excerpted from the Orthodox Study Bible's Appendices and the Jordanville Prayer Book:

O Lord our God, if during this day I have sinned, whether in word or deed or thought, forgive me all for You are good and love mankind.

0 Eternal God and King of all creation, Who hast vouchsafed me to arrive at this hour, forgive me the sins that I have committed this day in deed, word, and thought; and cleanse, 0 Lord, my lowly soul of all impurity of flesh and spirit, and grant me, 0 Lord, to pass the sleep of this night in peace;

0 Lord, Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, show compassion and have mercy on me Thy sinful servant, and loose me from mine unworthiness, and forgive all wherein I have sinned against Thee today

Forgive my sins, 0 Only Sinless One, in which I have sinned against Thee this day, known or unknown, in word, and deed, and thought, and in all my senses.

0 Lord our God, as Thou art good and the Lover of mankind, forgive me wherein I have sinned today in word, deed, and thought. Grant me peaceful and undisturbed sleep; send thy guardian angel to protect me from all evil.


See, not only do we pray for the forgiveness of sins in our private prayers, but also in our public confession. It is not because we expect the priest to somehow effect the forgiveness of our souls. The elder at the Church I went to in Chattanooga actually told everyone in his sermon that his prayer can be rescinded by our refusal to participate in contrite repentance, or if we are only going through the motions in our prayers in our house.

The confusion is not from what I said. It is from what you cherry-picked out of what I said and added to what I said. The two statements I made are not contradictory because I wasn't speaking of the Sacrament of Confession when I was speaking in that out of context sentence. You used confirmation bias, and stopped reading the instant your brain went "hey, here's something I can make some kind of conclusion about even though there were many more thoughts put forth to give context to the entire statement". So I don't need to answer your question because they were forgiven long before I go to Confession.

Furthermore, you assume that the command of God to confess our sins means that Grace cannot abound without one having the opportunity to confess immediately before death. Remember one of the caveats I made about Confession in my list? The one where you can't simply sin away your salvation? Or did you just ignore that and jump right on board the ship without checking for nuance?

 

[sculleywr]

It's quite relevant. Did Athanasius quote Scriptures or not?

It really isn't relevant, since Scripture is part of Tradition. You're essentially putting up the choice between using the right hand or the left hand, as if a person would never use both hands in many activities. The Oral Tradition is put up as equal to the written Tradition in Scripture.

 

[redleghunter]

It really isn't relevant, since Scripture is part of Tradition. You're essentially putting up the choice between using the right hand or the left hand, as if a person would never use both hands in many activities. The Oral Tradition is put up as equal to the written Tradition in Scripture.

Yes the way you explained it is accurate. However my point was to address the poster who made the original claim "tradition alone."

 

[sculleywr]

Yes the way you explained it is accurate. However my point was to address the poster who made the original claim "tradition alone."

Since Scripture is part of Tradition, then Tradition alone includes Scripture. The two are inseperable.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

yes, but it is still uncanonical as the very (eastern) definition of the term 'canonical scripture' can only mean books read in liturgy. St Athanasius 39th festal epistle is the only eastern Father to include Revelation but makes clear that the Church sanctions other books to be read by laity. He makes clear that canonical scripture does NOT imply some are divinely inspired texts while others are less inspired, its only an adjective to describe texts incorporated in official liturgy. Hence Revelation is non-canonical, deuterocanonical or 'worthy to be read' just like Clement's epistles or the Didache (also approved in the 85 canons) or however you would like to label them. Notice how the book of Baruch is totally canonical in both east and west since forever but protestant bibles place it as deuterocanonical.

It's not part of the Liturgical canon, but it's part of the Orthodox New Testament. Clement and the Didache are not generally bound with the New Testament, even though they're very good to read.

But I understand what you're saying, and it is completely correct: Revelations is not to be used as a basis for teaching in the Liturgy. It's not authorized for that, and has never been, hence not canon in that sense.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Not really any more circular than, "the Bible is authoritative because the Bible says so."

Fail. Go back and read the OP. Don't insult the truth and authority of scripture in an attempt to equalize it to your precious church's teaching. Scripture is true because Jesus said it is true. Scripture records this. Does not mean scripture gets authority from itself.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

You are correct that Catholics believe what the catechism teaches and consider scripture the highest authority.

Wrong, Catholics on CF have said differently than what the Catholic catechism says.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Because I don't. I'm not a Catholic so I'm not following the Pope.

Well you are certainly not Protestant because your logic is beyond belief. Maybe you should be Catholic.