EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 9, 2009

.

The following was posted in the Orthodox Congregation Forum where non-Orthodox may not respond, so I'm copying it here. Since I don't have the permission of the poster, he/she will go unnamed:

I've listened to a few podcasts and read a few tracts from Orthodox converts who offer refutation of Sola Scriptura ("SS"). I recently listened to a 3-part series by Dcn. Michael Hyatt on "Intersection of East and West." While well spoken and well presented, he unfortunately offered arguments that sailed very wide of their intended mark. The "sola scriptura" held by most "protestants" today is far removed from what the Reformers themselves held to, and almost all of the arguments are directed at this flimsy substitute. So I offer just a few arguments that shouldn't be used because they're irrelevant to the discussion. I hope this will help us to better understand each other's views.

1. Jn. 21:25 says "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Answer: Yep, it sure does. And??? SS makes no claim that every word ever spoken by Jesus was recorded in Scripture. It only claims what John himself said a few chapters earlier (20:30-31) "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." SS teaches that all things necessary for belief unto salvation, and for holy living, are contained in Scripture--in fact are contained in John's gospel, which is "this book" to which he refers--other words and deeds are elsewhere in Scripture itself. Also note that to use this argument is to assume a burden of proof--where in Holy Tradition are the rest of Jesus' words and deeds recorded?

2. 2 Thess. says "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." and "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." Answer: Yep, it sure does. And??? SS does not claim that only what is written in ink carries authority. Tradition is real and necessary and authoritative insofar as it accords with Scripture, which is by everyone's mutual agreement the only surviving source of God-breathed revelation available to the church. Again these arguments assume a burden of proof: can it be demonstrated conclusively that these traditions, to which Paul refers, differ in content or substance from what was eventually recorded in Scripture? Can we confirm that it contained doctrine necessary for salvation not found in Scripture? As SS does not deny the authority or necessity of tradition, this argument misses the mark.

3. Acts says that the Eunich needed Stephen to explain Scripture to him. Answer: Yep, it sure does. And??? SS does not deny the need for exposition of Scripture by faithful and learned teachers, nor the need for a structured clergy that protects the church against false teachers. But those true teachers must refute heretics from a right use of Scripture.

4. Paul's mention in 2 Tim. of "all Scripture" being inspired and profitable limits "Scripture" to just the O.T. Answer: no, it doesn't. "Scripture" is a category--all that is God-breathed is part of this category, whether written centuries before Paul, or decades later. The same goes for the Bereans "searching the Scriptures." Yes they searched the O.T. but this in no way means that S.S. limits itself to only those books. To use this argument is to fall into a categorical error.

5. There was no canon of Scripture until the 3rd or 4th century so Protestant's can't know which books to use. Answer: tougher to refute but not if "canon" is understood rightly. The collected works of Shakespeare contain works by that author, and they are his works because he wrote them, not because they were bound up with a table of contents. The church gradually recognized those books that are canonical but did not create the canon. If one holds this argument, does one not then conclude that nobody could have any confidence in which books were inspired, beginning with Genesis all the way down to the 3rd Century? How could a Jew have known that Isaiah was canonical?

6. SS produces disunity and disagreement--if it were so clear, why don't all Protestants agree? Answer: if Holy Tradition were so clear, why don't all Orthodox agree on both Scripture and Tradition? There is unity within diversity, is there not? Unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all things. It is not S.S. that produces division but our propensity to err and our sinful pride in drawing lines where they shouldn't be drawn. This befalls every Christian body. I believe that to use this argument is to hold to a double standard.

Some Comments:

I recently listened to a 3-part series by Dcn. Michael Hyatt on "Intersection of East and West." While well spoken and well presented, he unfortunately offered arguments that sailed very wide of their intended mark. The "sola scriptura" [assumed] is far removed from what the Reformers themselves held to, and almost all of the arguments are directed at this flimsy substitute.

I find this OFTEN the case. Sola Scriptura, of course, is simply the embrace of God's written Scripture as the Rule/Canon/"norma normans" for the evaluation of teachings. All of the criticisms of "Sola Scriptura" are usually directed to things that aren't even Sola Scriptura but strawmen.

I'm not 100% sure it's ALWAYS intentional. When Protestants speak of the issue of norming, they at times ALSO speak of issues of hermeneutics, Tradition and a host of OTHER topics. Sadly, at times, those unfamiliar with the praxis can wrongly conclude that ALL these things are Sola Scriptura.

1. Jn. 21:25 says "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

Yes, this verse has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion and therefore with Sola Scriptura. UNLESS one is arguing that some NONCANONICAL book which DOES confirm their dogma SHOULD be regarded as Scripture equal to all the rest (and as far as I know, only the LDS takes this view), then the point is entirely, completely moot.

And of course the verse ONLY says that Jesus DID some things not recorded IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. It doesn't say that Jesus TAUGHT many dogmas that God choose to keep out of His Scripture to the church but instead kept it as a big, dark secret LATER to be revealed to a single denomination (again, primarily an LDS view). Did Jesus eat breakfast on Palm Sunday? Probably. Did JOHN specifically record that in his Gospel book? Nope. That's all this verse is saying. It says NOTHING to Sola Scriptura.

2 Thess. says "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." and "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." [/quote]

Again, you are correct in noting that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the praxis of Sola Scriptura. It's yet another diversion and/or strawman....

Yes, Paul, Timothy and Silas evidently taught some things. Does that mean that what a Denomination teaches (RCC, LDS, LCMS, EO, UMC, etc.) is to be regarded as equal in normative function with God's Scripture according to this verse?

And note, it says "FROM US..." Not, "from the Bishops of the RCC or LDS."

And, of course, Sola Scriptura says NOTHING about Tradition. Positively or negatively or at all. Now, I suppose embracing Scripture ALONE as the norma normans DOES mean that therefore one's own view cannot be the final Rule for the evaluation of the self-same (creating a perfect circle of self-authentication) but the praxis itself says nothing to that. It simply suggests that ALL views (whether those of self or those of others) are subject to the SAME Canon (and yes, that could not be itself).

Acts says that the Eunich needed Stephen to explain Scripture to him. Answer: Yep, it sure does. And??? SS does not deny the need for exposition of Scripture by faithful and learned teachers, nor the need for a structured clergy that protects the church against false teachers. But those true teachers must refute heretics from a right use of Scripture.

Click to expand...

Right. To listen to some critics, you'd think that there's no Baptist preachers or teachers, no Baptist Sunday Schools, cuz all Protestants are opposed to teaching....

Sola Scriptura has NOTHING TO DO with the importance of the activity of teaching. It does have to do with BY WHAT is a teaching to be evaluated.

5. There was no canon of Scripture until the 3rd or 4th century so Protestant's can't know which books to use. Answer: tougher to refute but not if "canon" is understood rightly. The collected works of Shakespeare contain works by that author, and they are his works because he wrote them, not because they were bound up with a table of contents. The church gradually recognized those books that are canonical but did not create the canon. If one holds this argument, does one not then conclude that nobody could have any confidence in which books were inspired, beginning with Genesis all the way down to the 3rd Century? How could a Jew have known that Isaiah was canonical?

Click to expand...

Right.

And again, the list of books is not the praxis of Sola Scriptura. The praxis was just as valid when Scripture was just two stone tablets that Moses had brought down from the mountain. To argue that it cannot serve as a Canon because we don't know if it's FINISHED would be the same as telling a policeman who has pulled you over for speeding that he's moot because we don't know if the speed limit will someday be changed. And it's all moot anyway, there's only one denomination (the LDS) that is arguing that additional books that DO support thier unique dogmas is to be added to the Canon.

And JESUS Himself refered to Scripture (as He used Sola Scriptura). All these 300 years before the Council of Hippo and over 1500 years before the Council of Trent. Was He lying to call it Scripture when He did? To use such as normative?

The whole argument is irrelevant and moot - just a diversion from the point.

6. SS produces disunity and disagreement--if it were so clear, why don't all Protestants agree? Answer: if Holy Tradition were so clear, why don't all Orthodox agree on both Scripture and Tradition? There is unity within diversity, is there not? Unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all things. It is not S.S. that produces division but our propensity to err and our sinful pride in drawing lines where they shouldn't be drawn. This befalls every Christian body. I believe that to use this argument is to hold to a double standard.

Click to expand...

Another excellent point....

Actually, there are 3 denominations known to me that solidly reject Sola Scriptura in favor of the norma normans of "The Three-Legged-Stool" - the RC, EO and LDS. Do they agree in all matters with each other? With ANY other than self? Where is the evidence that "The Three Legged Stool" leads to more agreement? Unless one simply defines the "stool" as WHATEVER self alone thinks - then, yes, self IS likely to agree with self. So what? I typically agree with myself, does that make me correct? If not, then why does it make the RCC or LDS correct?

Yes, I realize that the RCC alone currently agrees with the RCC alone in all matters that the RCC alone currently thinks there should be agreement upon. Can't the same be said for the other 49.999 denominations that Catholics insist exist? So what?

The Official, Historic Definition of Sola Scriptura:

"The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (Ditto, 3). "No human being's writings dare be put on a par with it, but ... everything must be subjected to it" (Ditto, 9).

"The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)

Sola Scriptura IS....

An embrace of God's written word as the final "Rule" (staight edge) or "Canon" (measuring stick) or "norma normans" to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.

Sola Scriptura is NOT....

1. Doctrine. It's praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: "The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished." Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it's praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God's inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.

2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It's not hermeneutics, it's norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.

3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura "existed" just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the "size" of the Scripture was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the "canon" (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it's moot to the praxis).

4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called "private arbitration." SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called "public arbitration." It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.

5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It's just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.

Some Notes:

1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not "norm" this - thus we'd have an unnormed or abiblical teaching that we'd not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus' mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture to a suffient degree to be so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it's not technically a part of it.

2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn't guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.

Some quotes:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]"Let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth." [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)[/FONT]

"In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind....In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, butthere is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

"The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)

"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast." St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

"What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if all that is not of faith is sin' as the Apostle says, and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,' everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin." Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

"We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture." St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)

I hope that helps.

Pax

- Josiah

.

Sweetspirit · Sep 9, 2009

Using Sola Scriptura has produced multitudes of interpretations, causes splitting of the church, and false doctrines. Using Traditions with the Church adds cohesiveness to our learning of Scripture. Scriptures should never be allowed free interpretation without studying the Church history and how the early Church interpreted it, first.

sunlover1 · Sep 9, 2009

Sweetspirit said:
Using Sola Scriptura has produced multitudes of interpretations, causes splitting of the church, and false doctrines.

MISuse of Scripture does indeed.

Using Traditions with the Church adds cohesiveness to our learning of Scripture.

This method also produces different interpretations and so "causes" splits?
Doesnt matter if youre trying to understand Scripture or directions to the
DVD player, you may understand or misunderstand, no?

Scriptures should never be allowed free interpretation without studying the Church history and how the early Church interpreted it, first.

Allowed by who?

Sphinx777 · Sep 9, 2009

sunlover1 said:
Allowed by who?

Sweetspirit · Sep 9, 2009

Allowed by who? Allowed by any believer that is seeking the truth. (obvious)

No, using Traditions within Orthodoxy provides cohesiveness, and without being a member of an Orthodox Church, you will never understand that.

I'm speaking to deaf people here, and now sorry that I intruded this deep pit here. All you want to do is argue instead of listening or learning. I didn't understand this myself until I opened my mind, and let the studies of Orthodoxy into my fevered brain. It was a healing experience. I was a Protestant for many years, believing in Sola Scriptura, but no one seemed to agree what some passages meant. I saw many interpretations, and I saw many churches split into more and more denominations, until it made me sick. They continue to split up at an alarming rate. Is this what Jesus wanted when He handed us the original, and pure Church? Jesus taught many things to his Apostles, and his Apostles continued those teachings. Somehow denominational churches forget all of it, and want to reinterpret the Bible until it fits their needs, instead of conforming to the way God wants us to be. The more I read of Church history in the writings of the Early Church Fathers (EFC)... then I realized that the churches which I attended (all Protestant denominations, about 8 or 9 in all)...did not fit the early Church... the Apostles teachings, the saints, and what the Church was before there were so many changes. Change is not a good thing if one wants or needs to adhere to the original.

Sweetspirit · Sep 9, 2009

A perfect example. Sphinx777 misinterpreted my words so badly, how on earth do you ever hope to interpret Scripture correctly?? Hmmmm???

Blackknight · Sep 9, 2009

Don't even bother, they don't want to listen.

jckstraw72 · Sep 9, 2009

the belief that Sola Scriptura is the proper norma normans is a doctrine.

Sweetspirit · Sep 9, 2009

I agree Blackknight... they have to become fed up with the inconsistencies of Protestant teachings before they will listen. I pray that day comes sooner rather than later!

boswd · Sep 9, 2009

Sphinx777 said:

Those are actually very cool photo's, where did you find them. Do you have a link?

Tzaousios · Sep 9, 2009

I am quite willing to listen. In fact, I respect the Eastern Orthodoxy very much.

With all due respect, I would like to see an Orthodox apologist who can pull their weight in a debate against Protestant apologists.

Although I have read some very good Orthodox theology (Meyendorff, Ware, Lossky, Romanides, Greek fathers), there does not seem to be any actual apologists with command of the sources and theology to combat Protestants.

What usually happens is a blanket statement is issued about the Church, Holy Tradition, and pillar and bulwark of the faith, and that is expected to be a good enough answer to all challenges without going into details.

Tonks · Sep 9, 2009

Blackknight said:
Don't even bother, they don't want to listen.

Indeed. Bored with the Catholics, I guess.

LittleLambofJesus · Sep 9, 2009

Sphinx777 said:
Originally Posted by sunlover1

Allowed by who?

One can only imagine what they say after they have parted

What would it take for Orthodoxs to come under Pope - Page 82 - Christian Forums
What would it take for Orthodoxs to come under Pope

quote: The Pope would renounce his Roman Catholicism and become Orthodox.
There is nothing that would cause the Church as a whole to join with him.

Yeznik · Sep 9, 2009

Tzaousios said:
I am quite willing to listen. In fact, I respect the Eastern Orthodoxy very much.

With all due respect, I would like to see an Orthodox apologist who can pull their weight in a debate against Protestant apologists.

Although I have read some very good Orthodox theology (Meyendorff, Ware, Lossky, Romanides, Greek fathers), there does not seem to be any actual apologists with command of the sources and theology to combat Protestants.

What usually happens is a blanket statement is issued about the Church, Holy Tradition, and pillar and bulwark of the faith, and that is expected to be a good enough answer to all challenges without going into details.

Tzaousios,

Any Orthodox Church has, at least, 1000 years of apologists if not more. The ones I would recommend reading is Athanasius's apology against Arius, Cyril's apology against Nestorius, Yeznik's (5th Century) Refutation of the Sects, Peter of Damascus refutation of the Iconoclasts, Jeromes apology against Helvidius. Here is my favorite quotes by Yeznik:

"It is the task of the Church of God to judge and argue with those outside on the basis of true facts without reference to the Holy Scriptures and those inside, the seeming believers, by reference to the Holy Book."

LittleLambofJesus · Sep 9, 2009

Yeznik said:
Tzaousios,

Any Orthodox Church has, at least, 1000 years of apologists if not more. The ones I would recommend reading is Athanasius's apology against Arius, Cyril's apology against Nestorius, Yeznik's (5th Century) Refutation of the Sects, Peter of Damascus refutation of the Iconoclasts, Jeromes apology against Helvidius. Here is my favorite quotes by Yeznik:

"It is the task of the Church of God to judge and argue with those outside on the basis of true facts without reference to the Holy Scriptures

and those inside, the seeming believers, by reference to the Holy Book."

Not sure I understand that fully.

When debating atheists, Jews, Muslims and other religions on our Bible, are you saying we are not to reference the Bible to them? Just curious

Yeznik · Sep 9, 2009

[FONT=&quot]I recently listened to a 3-part series by Dcn. Michael Hyatt on "Intersection of East and West." While well spoken and well presented, he unfortunately offered arguments that sailed very wide of their intended mark. The "sola scriptura" [assumed] is far removed from what the Reformers themselves held to, and almost all of the arguments are directed at this flimsy substitute.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Hello Josiah,

You have hit the nail on the head with your first comment. Sola Scriptura IS far removed to what the original Reformers held to, these types of deviations are natural progressions of Protestantism. Where an idea is formed and Protestant groups start to deviates into smaller and smaller groups until the original definition, prescribed by the Protestant Fathers, no longer holds any weight but rather the interpretation of Scripture by an individual is valued higher than group beliefs.

Secondly, there is no consensus or 1 single creed or council that Protestantism adheres to. Meaning, you have quoted the Historic Definition of Sola Scriptura but that doesnt mean that all Protestant Churches adhere to the definition or have to accept it. Unfortunately, in this day and age, 2 Protestants can be speaking of Sola Scriptura but each ones definition differs from the other.

Regarding what Sola Scriptura is:

[FONT=&quot]

An embrace of God's written word as the final "Rule" (staight edge) or "Canon" (measuring stick) or "norma normans" to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
This, seems like a logical definition of what Sola Scriptura is, and a rather good one that. But, you have defined it as a praxis I have heard other Protestants definite it as doctrine. The issue that rises from Sola Scriptura, is that two people using the same rule will come to different conclusions. Let me give you an example of the discussion I have had.

I have spoken to Calvinists regarding Saint Mary having other children, and for the most part Calvinists believe that Christ had siblings. But, after reading some of John Calvins writings I understood that John Calvin believed that Saint Mary and no other children. So here was the issue for me, Calvinists believe that Christ had siblings, but Calvin didnt (this is the deviation that I had mentioned before). Both Calvinists and Calvin studied Scripture but both got to different conclusions. So here was my point, by using the Sola Scriptura rule/doctrine, we have two different conclusions. This wasnt even a theological issue, per say, either Christ had or didnt have siblings He couldnt have both. Most of the replies that I have received is that this is a matter of opinion or this doesnt really matter. But, if we consider Christ a real person one or the other has to be correct. And unfortunately Protestantisms Sola Scriptura falls short even explaining non theological necessities about Christ being a real human being.

The major difference between any Orthodox Church and some Protestant Groups is that Orthodoxy points to factual history regarding its teachings, rather than creating logistical formulations, such as Sola Scriptura, based on Scripture.

Yeznik · Sep 9, 2009

LittleLambofJesus said:
Not sure I understand that fully.

When debating atheists, Jews, Muslims and other religions on our Bible, are you saying we are not to reference the Bible to them? Just curious

Hello LLOJ,

To fully understand the text here is the work in its entirety.

Yeznik of Kolb: Refutation of the Sects

nestoj · Sep 9, 2009

LittleLambofJesus said:
Not sure I understand that fully.

When debating atheists, Jews, Muslims and other religions on our Bible, are you saying we are not to reference the Bible to them? Just curious

Yes. They do not accept Bible as undisputed truth, hence quoting it bears no weight for them. Sola Scriptura won't work there.

For CJ:

1. Jn. 21:25 says "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Answer: Yep, it sure does. And??? SS makes no claim that every word ever spoken by Jesus was recorded in Scripture. It only claims what John himself said a few chapters earlier (20:30-31) "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." SS teaches that all things necessary for belief unto salvation, and for holy living, are contained in Scripture--in fact are contained in John's gospel, which is "this book" to which he refers--other words and deeds are elsewhere in Scripture itself. Also note that to use this argument is to assume a burden of proof--where in Holy Tradition are the rest of Jesus' words and deeds recorded?

Well, SS is wrong. One, and only one, thing is necessary for salvation and that is God. God said "No one comes to the Father, except through me" and " I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live", "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.", "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."...etc. If we are to get to the foundations, it mentions nothing about the reading, knowing or adhering to the Scripture. It just says "believe" and don't reject that belief and your faith will be evident. If that's enough for someone to believe, than nothing else is needed. Basically, Lord needs nothing in order to save but He does give us the tools. Interesting thing is, he never mentions "what is written about Me" bu He does mention "my Church". Should I remind you that Orthodox never claimed "we decide who is saved"?

2. 2 Thess. says "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." and "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." Answer: Yep, it sure does. And??? SS does not claim that only what is written in ink carries authority. Tradition is real and necessary and authoritative insofar as it accords with Scripture, which is by everyone's mutual agreement the only surviving source of God-breathed revelation available to the church. Again these arguments assume a burden of proof: can it be demonstrated conclusively that these traditions, to which Paul refers, differ in content or substance from what was eventually recorded in Scripture? Can we confirm that it contained doctrine necessary for salvation not found in Scripture? As SS does not deny the authority or necessity of tradition, this argument misses the mark.

How does that differ from what Orthodox are saying? It doesn't say "if it's not in the Scripture then it's wrong". It says "If it's against the Scripture, then it's wrong" and "hold what you've been taught" but it also means "if it's against what we've taught you then it's wrong". Should I remind you that is exactly what we do?

....

I'll give my opinion on the rest once I have more time...

God helps

Tzaousios · Sep 9, 2009

Yeznik said:
Any Orthodox Church has, at least, 1000 years of apologists if not more. The ones I would recommend reading is Athanasius's apology against Arius, Cyril's apology against Nestorius, Yeznik's (5th Century) Refutation of the Sects, Peter of Damascus refutation of the Iconoclasts, Jeromes apology against Helvidius.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear in the first post. I acknowledged the wealth of apologetic material in the Church fathers. However, I think it is encumbent on the apologist to show what he or she is able to do with the historical sources and with Scripture. This involves countering and answering with specific citations.

Yeznik said:
"It is the task of the Church of God to judge and argue with those outside on the basis of true facts without reference to the Holy Scriptures and those inside, the seeming believers, by reference to the Holy Book."

Wow. This seems to be a bit of an unfortunate quote from him. What does this Yeznik and Orthodox clergy and laity believe concerning the example of Paul and the admonition of Peter concerning the apologetic task?

I guess I must also ask how the Oriental Orthodox Church categorizes Protestants and Catholics. It is my understanding that they would be considered Christians although heterodox.

1. From Paul, all the instances in Acts where he reasoned with the Jews and Gentiles in the synagogues and market places from Scripture. Also, on Mars Hill where he reasoned with the Greek intellectuals from both Scripture and contemporary philosophy.

2.

1 Peter 3:15-17

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. 17 For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

Zoness · Sep 9, 2009

Interesting thread I like reading about the EO.

EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

Well-Known Member

Save us O Son of God

Beloved, Let us love one another

Well-Known Member

Save us O Son of God

Save us O Son of God

Servant of God

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Save us O Son of God

Well-Known Member

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός

No longer here

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Yeznik

Guest

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Yeznik

Guest

Yeznik

Guest

Senior Member

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός

667, neighbor of the beast

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency