EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 12, 2009

.

Originally Posted by Thekla

No, I do not see that scripture was the only norm He used.

Fair enough. Please give for me the biblical references where Jesus pointed to each of the following in a normative, canonical fashion:

The Divine Liturgy of the EO
The Holy Services of the EO
The Holy Mysteries of the EO
The Byzantine Chant of the EO
The Temple Architecture of the EO

An earlier EO poster listed these as also part of the canon of the EO.

.

Thekla · Sep 12, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
.

Originally Posted by Thekla

No, I do not see that scripture was the only norm He used.

Fair enough. Please give for me the biblical references where Jesus pointed to each of the following in a normative, canonical fashion:

The Divine Liturgy of the EO
The Holy Services of the EO
The Holy Mysteries of the EO
The Byzantine Chant of the EO
The Temple Architecture of the EO

An earlier EO poster listed these as also part of the canon of the EO.

.

First
you'll need to show a copy of the OT with both aural and visual "aids".

Then I can show you as you listen ....

By the way, why would the eucharist be present in the OT as a scriptural norm ???

katholikos · Sep 12, 2009

katholikos said:
This is a funny question coming from a Lutheran. I have seen a Lutheran booklet used for Sunday services, and it is almost the same as a Catholic Mass. So before you go giving the EO's the third degree, maybe you could tell us all why you follow the Catholic Mass so closely?

CaliforniaJosiah said:
1. Who is giving ANYONE "the third degree" for anything? Certainly not me.........

Okay. I will re-phrase the question:

You asked: ".....Please give for me the biblical references where Jesus pointed to each of the following in a normative, canonical fashion: The Divine Liturgy of the EO , The Holy Services of the EO........."

My question to you is: Please give me the biblical references where Jesus pointed to the order of worship which you follow in a Lutheran church on Sundays

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 12, 2009

Yeznik said:
Here is one point; I will try to get to the others at a later time.

Scripture is the secondary source of God; the primary source is His revelation not ink on paper, not what Moses brought down from the mountain or words on a page.

Okay.

Now, let's return to the issue of this thread - which is NOT revelation or how to "experience" the divine. It is what is embraced as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions (including those of self).

I'm not exactly sure why there is what seems to be a persistent effort to divert the discussion to other issues rather than discussing this one..

I "see" your point. The mother of one of my friends is a self-described/appointed Prophetess and Apostle with numerous spiritual gifts (according to her): apostleship, prophecy, teaching, tongues and the interpretation thereof (she does both in her case) and God gives new revelations to her with some frequency. I'm on her email list so I get these. She OFTEN speaks of knowing God and things of spirituality. Now, is what she says CORRECT? Well, according to HER it's pretty much a moot question since she alone declares that she alone is INCAPABLE of being wrong, since when she speaks, Jesus speaks (compare to Catholic Catechism # 87 - just an interesting aspect). BUT, when pressed, she explained that one can evaluate her on the basis of the other things God has revealed - is such in conformity with that? And guess what - the other things God has revealed have all been through her alone, so you must look to what she alone has said for the rule/canon/norma normans for what she alone has said. She'll point out that it all "fits" - and she's right. I don't how how she could NOT be right about that. If "A" is deemed as the rule, and if "A" is held up to that rule, then "A" MUST be viewed as conforming. But, IMHO, this has no relevance to truth or correctness, it ONLY means that "A" agrees with "A" - it has no bearing whatsoever on whether "A" is correct. Follow?

Or let's compare to my studies in Mormonism. The LDS has dropped its claim of self alone for self alone that self alone is infallible/unaccountable, when it speaks Jesus speaks. It now regards itself as accountable and subject to evaluation (unlike the RCC). So, it becomes a reasonable question to ask: TO WHAT? What is the rule/canon/norma normans for this? And the apologists are ready, immediately. They have their rule/canon well defined. "It is The-Legged-Stool" we are told. And what IS that "Three-Legged-Stool?"
1. The Tradition of the LDS as chosen, defined and interpreted by the LDS alone. They point to the Apostles and Prophets, and to the Second Testimony (dogmas taught by Jesus but not included - specifically - in the Bible), the "other" revelation. This is always spoken of first and given most emphasis, but theoretically, it is equal to the other three legs.
2. The Bible. But this isn't the Bible as a book, those black and white words on the page (compare with Catholic Catechism # 113 - fasinating). Those can be very misleading and besides, they have been corrupted and we can't know they are original. No, it's the MEANING of those words as determined by the LDS alone that is the rule/canon/norma normans, the "word in MY heart" as the RCC would put it.
3. The Magisterium. God has established His Church (the LDS) and especially guides and protects it (not infallibly, as is claimed by the RCC, the LDS acknowledges now that it can make mistakes but they will eventually be corrected and none will be major). Thus, God reveals Himself via the rulings, decisions, arbitrations, councils and interpretations of the LDS - His Church.
Now, these three "legs" are EQUAL and INSEPARABLE so that WHATEVER is in one MUST be in the others - by implication if not explicitely. Thus, what the LDS has said MUST be biblical and biblically taught. What the LDS Tradition says MUST be Biblical and biblically taught (even if only in the heart of the LDS). It is IMPOSSIBLE, using the "three-legged-stool" canon for the LDS to ever determine that the LDS is fundamentally wrong, since it's canon is simply itself. "A" will be arbitrated as correct BECAUSE "A" conforms with "A". But, it is MY position that this is moot to the issue of correctness, it is simply an indication of whether the LDS agrees with ITSELF (and if other views are evaluated, if they argree with the LDS, and of course they rarely do, thus they are all "apostate."). Interesting, I think, to compare this with Catholic Catechism 97, 100, etc. and it's embraces on 3 things as its rule/canon, each working TOGEHTER, INSEPARATELY and EQUALLY: CC Tradition, the Scripture in the heart of the CC, and the Magisterium of the CC.

Friend, I don't know what serves as the rule/canon/norma normans in Orthodoxy. I was told it's a long list of things - and I've been assuming that for several pages now (no Orthodox has stated that their brother was wrong in what he told me). It includes (among many other things) the physical design of your church buildings, your liturgy(ies), a chant, etc. Okay.... But this thread really isn't an investigation into YOUR canon for the evaluation of your teachings, it is a discussion of the apologetics claimed to be used by the EO AGAINST embracing Scripture as the canon/rule. It's NOT a discussion of piety or spirituality or revelation or worship styles. It's a discussion of WHAT serves as the NORMA NORMANS as positions are evaluated.

.

Chesterton · Sep 12, 2009

Thekla said:
First
you'll need to show a copy of the OT with both aural and visual "aids".

Where is Cecil B. DeMille when you need him?

katholikos · Sep 12, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 12, 2009

katholikos said:
Okay. I will re-phrase the question:

You asked: ".....Please give for me the biblical references where Jesus pointed to each of the following in a normative, canonical fashion: The Divine Liturgy of the EO , The Holy Services of the EO........."

My question to you is: Please give me the biblical references where Jesus pointed to the order of worship which you follow in a Lutheran church on Sundays

He never did. But then it is NOT my position that the Lutheran Liturgy is the norma normans. I was told that the Orthodox Liturgy is in the EO.

And I never claimed that the Lutheran Liturgy as a canon is older than using Scripture as such. I was told the Orthodox one is.

I was ONLY responding to that.

And it was agreed that Jesus used Scripture normatively, but it was insisted that He used OTHER things equally normatively. I asked for the references to such, but so far none has been offered. And I especially asked that examples of Jesus using the specific things of the EO rule be given, but that too has been ignored to date. So, we have agreement that He used Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura) but no indication that He used anything else as such, much less specifically the things the EO claims are the rule. I was responding to THAT.

Freind, I never posted that the Mass in the RCC is bad. I just have no idea where you read me posting that, especially since I have so many posts about how much I LOVE Catholic worship, piety and spirituality and how much that has blessed me.

.

katholikos · Sep 12, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
He never did. But then it is NOT my position that the Lutheran Liturgy is the norma normans. I was told that the Orthodox Liturgy is in the EO........

But you participate in it, don't you? And by being a Lutheran, that means you endorse it, correct?

Blackknight · Sep 12, 2009

The Liturgy is not our rule per se but everything in it is based on scripture or old Jewish temple services. Sacred Tradition is our ultimate rule, as I mentioned earlier. The article I posted a link to also explains a lot.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 12, 2009

katholikos said:
But you participate in it, don't you? And by being a Lutheran, that means you endorse it, correct?

No one (certainly not Lutherans) regards any Lutheran liturgy (there are thousands of them) as canonical or as the norma normans.

I was specifically told earlier by an EO poster (and none have correct such) that one of MANY things in the EO embraced as the rule/canon/norma normans is the Liturgy of the EO.

it is NOT my position that the Lutheran Liturgy is the norma normans. I was told that the Orthodox Liturgy is in the EO.

And I never claimed that the Lutheran Liturgy as a canon is older than using Scripture as such. I was told the Orthodox one is.

I was ONLY responding to that.

And it was agreed that Jesus used Scripture normatively, but it was insisted that He used OTHER things equally normatively. I asked for the references to such, but so far none has been offered. And I especially asked that examples of Jesus using the specific things of the EO rule be given, but that too has been ignored to date. So, we have agreement that He used Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura) but no indication that He used anything else as such, much less specifically the things the EO claims are the rule. I was responding to THAT.

Friend, I never posted that the Mass in the RCC is bad. I just have no idea where you read me posting that, especially since I have so many posts about how much I LOVE Catholic worship, piety and spirituality and how much that has blessed me.

.

Thekla · Sep 12, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
He never did. But then it is NOT my position that the Lutheran Liturgy is the norma normans. I was told that the Orthodox Liturgy is in the EO.

And I never claimed that the Lutheran Liturgy as a canon is older than using Scripture as such. I was told the Orthodox one is.

I was ONLY responding to that.

And it was agreed that Jesus used Scripture normatively, but it was insisted that He used OTHER things equally normatively. I asked for the references to such, but so far none has been offered. And I especially asked that examples of Jesus using the specific things of the EO rule be given, but that too has been ignored to date. So, we have agreement that He used Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura) but no indication that He used anything else as such, much less specifically the things the EO claims are the rule. I was responding to THAT.

Freind, I never posted that the Mass in the RCC is bad. I just have no idea where you read me posting that, especially since I have so many posts about how much I LOVE Catholic worship, piety and spirituality and how much that has blessed me.

.

Not quite accurate. I stated, for example, that God is the rule/measure.
You stated that God is the measure only "in a sense", (implying that God as measure is secondary to His rule -- what He gives is greater than Him).

In fact, Paul posits the walk of those in Christ as a norm to be practiced.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 12, 2009

.

.

Thekla · Sep 12, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Okay.

Now, let's return to the issue of this thread - which is NOT revelation or how to "experience" the divine. It is what is embraced as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions (including those of self).

So in this, you mean that scripture is not revelation ?

Blackknight · Sep 12, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
In theology, this is known as Sola Scriptura.

Scripture is just one part of Tradition, that's what I've been trying to explain all along. There are many reasons that sola scriptura does not work for us.

There's nothing in the Bible about how to cross ourselves. There's nothing in the bible about how to write icons. There's nothing about building monasteries, etc. etc.

As I said, read the link which explains this a lot better than I can.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 12, 2009

Thekla said:
Not quite accurate. I stated, for example, that God is the rule/measure.
You stated that God is the measure only "in a sense", (implying that God as measure is secondary to His rule -- what He gives is greater than Him).

In fact, Paul posits the walk of those in Christ as a norm to be practiced.

No.

God is a "rule" in the sense that all things (not just dogma) should conform to Him. He is the canon in THAT sense.

On the other hand, such is a bit difficult as a tool in epistemology (especially norming). I suppose we could be evaluating Bob's dogma that Mary had pink hair by asking, "does pink hair conform to the image of God?" But I just don't think that's going to get us too far. I get the point, and in a general sense, I agree. But the issue before us is more practical than that.

A Mormon could (and DOES!) says that his dogmas "conform" to Christ whereas yours are apostate and deny God. Hum. And perhaps you'd say the same back (better worded, I suspect).

Let's use this example. Position "A" is "God the Father has a Father." This is NOT dogma in the LDS but is a commonly held and often taught teaching there. The LDS would INSIST this conforms to the image of God whereas a contrary view does not. I don't think we can make much progress there..., although I don't deny that our spirituality comes into play here. Now, the LDS won't stop there (any more - it no longer claims to be infallible/unaccountable - above examination). It will welcome investigation of the view via it's accepted canon. And what IS that canon/rule? Well, it's the Three-Legged-Stool. And what IS that "Three-Legged-Stool?"
1. The Tradition of the LDS as chosen, defined and interpreted by the LDS alone. They point to the Apostles and Prophets, and to the Second Testimony (dogmas taught by Jesus but not included - specifically - in the Bible), the "other" revelation. This is always spoken of first and given most emphasis, but theoretically, it is equal to the other three legs.
2. The Bible. But this isn't the Bible as a book, those black and white words on the page (compare with Catholic Catechism # 113 - fasinating). Those can be very misleading and besides, they have been corrupted and we can't know they are original. No, it's the MEANING of those words as determined by the LDS alone that is the rule/canon/norma normans, the "word in MY heart" as the RCC would put it.
3. The Magisterium. God has established His Church (the LDS) and especially guides and protects it (not infallibly, as is claimed by the RCC, the LDS acknowledges now that it can make mistakes but they will eventually be corrected and none will be major). Thus, God reveals Himself via the rulings, decisions, arbitrations, councils and interpretations of the LDS - His Church.
Now, these three "legs" are EQUAL and INSEPARABLE so that WHATEVER is in one MUST be in the others - by implication if not explicitely. Thus, what the LDS has said MUST be biblical and biblically taught. What the LDS Tradition says MUST be Biblical and biblically taught (even if only in the heart of the LDS). It is IMPOSSIBLE, using the "three-legged-stool" canon for the LDS to ever determine that the LDS is fundamentally wrong, since it's canon is simply itself. "A" will be arbitrated as correct BECAUSE "A" conforms with "A". But, it is MY position that this is moot to the issue of correctness, it is simply an indication of whether the LDS agrees with ITSELF (and if other views are evaluated, if they argree with the LDS, and of course they rarely do, thus they are all "apostate."). Interesting, I think, to compare this with Catholic Catechism 97, 100, etc. and it's embraces on 3 things as its rule/canon, each working TOGEHTER, INSEPARATELY and EQUALLY: CC Tradition, the Scripture in the heart of the CC, and the Magisterium of the CC.

My degree is in physics. Let's say that I submit an article to a grand scientific journal to state that I've discovered a large moon around Venus! Now, my spirituality says this conforms to the image of God, but all my data is entirely blank - I have NOTHING that indicates that moon. Nonetheless, I agrue that it's "there" becuase I use the views of myself as the rule/canon/norma normans for whether I'm right, and I say it's there and I'm right - so it MUST be there! MY view is that what I've done, by embracing my Tradition as the rule, is simply to indicate if SELF agrees with SELF - it has no bearing on whether that moon exists or not. The journal will want something beyond my own insistance. It will require some Rule OUTSIDE and ABOVE me - something more objective, knowable, examinable than my personal opinion (however sincere and pious). Now we have a commonly accepted norma normans in physics. I know what it is, the journal knows what it is, all the readers of that journal know what it is - and it's NOT the views of Josiah (unfortunately). I need to hold my opinion up to the Rule/Canon/Standard/Plumbline OUTSIDE and ABOVE me, over which I have no ability to amend, so that it is ruled CORRECT. The journal might publish my paper (pretty much the goal in science, lol) IF I do a reasonably good job of substantiating the view vis-a-vis the rule/canon. If we proceed on "one is right if one agrees with oneself" I just don't think we get too far - as any good study of Mormonism might teach you. And IF that is your position, then it becomes respected ONLY if you do also respect it, so if the Mormon says (and he likely will!), God the Father has a Father because that view agrees with that view" then I'd expect you to give that the same respect you'd ask of him for some EO view - otherwise, you are rejecting the very praxis you are insisting upon.

It's interesting (and perhaps relevant) that EVEN THE INCARNATE GOD did not ask us to accept He is correct because he agreed with himself. Some 50 times, he pointed to Scripture. And of course, confirmed such with miracles, signs and His resurrection. He had a rule - and it was Scripture. EVEN THE SON OF GOD. Helen (my friend's mom who is a self designated Apostle and Prophetess) wants us to know she is correct because her revelations agree with her revelations - she rather passionately rejects Sola Scripture or ANY rule that is not simply herself or totally under her own control.

Thank you.

Pax

- Josiah

.

Chesterton · Sep 12, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Ah, another issue for another day and thread.

Or another forum? Perhaps move SS related threads to "Unorthodox Theology"?

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 12, 2009

Thekla said:
So in this, you mean that scripture is not revelation ?

No, what I mean is what I posted. Here's what I said:

Josiah said:
Now, let's return to the issue of this thread - which is NOT revelation or how to "experience" the divine.

To join your diversion, yes, Scripture is PART of God's revelation. Scripture itself says that the heavens declare the glory of God. But since no one (known to me) embraces watching the sun rise on Maui as the norma normans for the evaluation of dogmas (and I haven't a clue how it could serve as such), that is moot to our discussion. As has been noted MANY times, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all revelation is contained in the pages of Scripture, it is the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture as the norma normans.

.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 12, 2009

Originally Posted by Thekla

No, I do not see that scripture was the only norm He used.

Fair enough. Please give for me the biblical references where Jesus pointed to each of the following in a normative, canonical fashion:

The Divine Liturgy of the EO
The Holy Services of the EO
The Holy Mysteries of the EO
The Byzantine Chant of the EO
The Temple Architecture of the EO

An earlier EO poster listed these as also part of the canon of the EO.

Thekla · Sep 12, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
No.

God is a "rule" in the sense that all things (not just dogma) should conform to Him. He is the canon in THAT sense.

On the other hand, such is a bit difficult as a tool in epistemology (especially norming). I suppose we could be evaluating Bob's dogma that Mary had pink hair by asking, "does pink hair conform to the image of God?" But I just don't think that's going to get us too far. I get the point, and in a general sense, I agree. But the issue before us is more practical than that.

Then perhaps you could describe the purpose of dogma in Christianity.
If the matter is practical, then the purpose of dogma is central to the consideration.

Let's use this example. Position "A" is "God the Father has a Father." This is NOT dogma in the LDS but is a commonly held and often taught teaching there. The LDS would INSIST this conforms to the image of God whereas a contrary view does not. I don't think we can make much progress there..., although I don't deny that our spirituality comes into play here. Now, the LDS won't stop there (any more - it no longer claims to be infallible/unaccountable - above examination). It will welcome investigation of the view via it's accepted canon. And what IS that canon/rule? Well, it's the Three-Legged-Stool. And what IS that "Three-Legged-Stool?"
1. The Tradition of the LDS as chosen, defined and interpreted by the LDS alone. They point to the Apostles and Prophets, and to the Second Testimony (dogmas taught by Jesus but not included - specifically - in the Bible), the "other" revelation. This is always spoken of first and given most emphasis, but theoretically, it is equal to the other three legs.
2. The Bible. But this isn't the Bible as a book, those black and white words on the page (compare with Catholic Catechism # 113 - fasinating). Those can be very misleading and besides, they have been corrupted and we can't know they are original. No, it's the MEANING of those words as determined by the LDS alone that is the rule/canon/norma normans, the "word in MY heart" as the RCC would put it.
3. The Magisterium. God has established His Church (the LDS) and especially guides and protects it (not infallibly, as is claimed by the RCC, the LDS acknowledges now that it can make mistakes but they will eventually be corrected and none will be major). Thus, God reveals Himself via the rulings, decisions, arbitrations, councils and interpretations of the LDS - His Church.
Now, these three "legs" are EQUAL and INSEPARABLE so that WHATEVER is in one MUST be in the others - by implication if not explicitely. Thus, what the LDS has said MUST be biblical and biblically taught. What the LDS Tradition says MUST be Biblical and biblically taught (even if only in the heart of the LDS). It is IMPOSSIBLE, using the "three-legged-stool" canon for the LDS to ever determine that the LDS is fundamentally wrong, since it's canon is simply itself. "A" will be arbitrated as correct BECAUSE "A" conforms with "A". But, it is MY position that this is moot to the issue of correctness, it is simply an indication of whether the LDS agrees with ITSELF (and if other views are evaluated, if they argree with the LDS, and of course they rarely do, thus they are all "apostate."). Interesting, I think, to compare this with Catholic Catechism 97, 100, etc. and it's embraces on 3 things as its rule/canon, each working TOGEHTER, INSEPARATELY and EQUALLY: CC Tradition, the Scripture in the heart of the CC, and the Magisterium of the CC.

Yes, Josiah, but I don't see how the use of sola scriptura is so very different from the three-legged stool. In fact, as a reaction to Catholicism, it essentially replaced RC tradition with its own. It replaced the tradition of the "three-legged stool" with "the book alone" -- but does not seem to say what the scripture is (letter or spirit), and accepts as norm that which was selected by the three-legged stool.

For example, we agree that scripture is not the only norm evidenced in scripture. If this were the case, there would be NO SCRIPTURE (as there would be, for example for Abraham no scripture to norm his experience against).

I still don't understand how one can treat scripture as the only norm and then reject the other norms that scripture describes as being used (Paul and handing over as well as following life examples of other Christians).

Thekla · Sep 12, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
No, what I mean is what I posted. Here's what I said:

To join your diversion, yes, Scripture is PART of God's revelation. Scripture itself says that the heavens declare the glory of God. But since no one (known to me) embraces watching the sun rise on Maui as the norma normans for the evaluation of dogmas (and I haven't a clue how it could serve as such), that is moot to our discussion. As has been noted MANY times, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all revelation is contained in the pages of Scripture, it is the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture as the norma normans.

.

But isn't claiming scripture as the only norm (when scripture arose from tradition, and does not evidence scripture as the only norm) sort of assigning a standard and claiming it is correct because "I say so" ?

Again, I think first the purpose of dogma - and scripture - should be defined.

EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Servant of God

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Servant of God

Well-Known Member

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency