EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Of course. Of course, such is not permission to ASSUME Jesus TAUGHT dogmas where there is zero indication of such. Such is the fundamental problem in Mormonism, the ASSUMPTION that there's all the "Second Testimony" or what we sometimes see in other denominations, "the Apostles taught this...." but when you ask "where?" you get a blank look. I could ANYONE could say, "Jesus said that Josiah is the smartest guy alive!" But if there's no evidence that He did, is that good to ASSUME? DOGMATICALLY? And if I can do it, why not Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy? Maybe what we need is some record of what Jesus and the Apostle said, one in writing, one ALL PARTIES involved in the discussion agree is accurate, sound, reliable - and KNOWABLE? Ah, that's the question of this thread. WHAT should we use as the canon, the norma normans? IF the view of Josiah about Josiah is the rule for what Josiah says about Josiah, we are apt to conclude that what Josiah says about Josiah agrees with the rule/canon of what Josiah says about Josiah - but is THAT the most sound rule for the determination of whether what Josiah says is correct???? Maybe we need something beyond, above, outside of Josiah.... It would be ideal if GOD wrote something, wouldn't it?

What Christ was described as doing in scripture was more than reference scripture; referencing scripture was not His only action. Sola scriptura selects one action and discards His other actions. This is inconsistent and reifies iteration and text. It reduces the person of Christ to a brain and a tongue. It replaces the person of Christ with a textual reification.[/quote]

The only things we know that Jesus DID or TAUGHT are recording in the Books of the Bible. I know the LDS disagrees, but unless we accept the unique "Scriptures" of one denomination, that's it.

Now, I think it was YOU that said that Jesus not only uses Scripture normatively, but many other things too. I presume the things the EO declares as its canon/rule/norma normans are among these. But so far, no one as been able to share even one instance of even one of these ever been used by Jesus canonically/normatively. Or any other in Scripture. So, where is your evidence that Jesus used OTHER things canonically/normatively? Where is your substantiation that Jesus used the distinctive EO things that the EO uses? I know you said it, but do you have ANYTHING to support it? I know you said you don't have time as a busy homemaker to give ALL the examples, and I want to respect that, but could you give us one example?

if you have evidence of what Jesus said that is NOT included in the Bible, then such really should be submitted for inclusion in the Scriptures. I kinda wonder why no one has even suggested that in 2000 years. Now, I realize that Mary Baker Eddy and Joseph Smith think He taught things not contained in the Bible, but there's no consensus at all beyond individual denominations about that. Again, if you have historic, ecumenically accepted writtings with the words of Jesus - containing dogmas which He din't teach in our 27 NT books, let's see them.

Why are your only examples of others always given a negative tinge; it renders a sort of "guilt by association" without regard for the argument being made.

Where did I say anything was "negative?" But if you think it negative, why are you defending it? I don't understand.

What other canon/norm did Jesus use? We know he used Scripture normatively some 50 times. But when did He use the addtional norms of the EO? I've asked for at least one example of each of them, repeatedly I've asked for this, but so far no one has supplied such.

Thus, you seem to argue that of the things Christ did which are described in scripture.

... because YOU agreed that Jesus used Scripture canonically/normatively, but insisted that He used OTHER things that way, too. Including the list of things the EO uses. You said you would supply the examples, where Jesus did that. That's why.

Nice, but moot. If you are claiming that Jesus used the EO Liturgy as norma normans, then please supply at least one example. A case where Jesus taught something, then held such up to the canon of the EO Liturgy and said (as He did some 50 times with Scripture), "As the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy says...." Or "As it is stated in the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy....." and then such is given. I'm NOT asking for every single example, just one would help.

Given your failure to supply any statement of Christ indicating which books to include in the NT canon, I find it at best inconsistent that you would require a higher standard from a "non sola scripturist" than from a sola scripturist

Which book embraced as Scripture do you deny as such? If you have a book containing Jesus teachings Dogmas not found in the 27 NT book, would you share it?

You are the one who made your point that while Jesus did use Scripture canonically, He used a host of OTHER things, too. You said you would give the examples of this. Of course, this is to include the list of things the EO uniquely uses as its canon. Then you said you were too busy to give all of them. So I requested just one of them. Now, I'm just waiting for that. It was your arguement. Scripture is used canoncially (and perhaps you want to go one to say it should be), BUT (your key point) He used all these other EO things, too. All I asked if for an example of such.

If a Mormon told you that Jesus refered to the Book of Mormon as the Word of God and God's Revelation, the canon for evaluating truth, would you ask him/her where? For an example of such? I have a hunch you might. But perhaps your rubric is that if a person says something, it's thereby dogmatically factual, or that it simply is entirely moot if such is true or false, right or wrong - for what is said/taught/claimed about Jesus doesn't matter?

Right now, we have the agreement that Jesus used Scripture normatively, canonically. But we have the claim that Jesus used a host of OTHER things, including a rather long list of things exclusive to your denomination: The church designs of the EO, a chant of the EO, a liturgy of the EO, etc., etc., etc. But so far, no one has been able to produce a single example of ANY of these EVER been used by Jesus normatively (in fact, no examples of Him so much as mentioning any of them - at all, normatively or not). So, it seems to ME, Jesus used one thing normatively (although very often) and that is Scripture.

Again, you seem to select one action of Christ and then call that one action the whole Christ.

You are the one insisting that He used OTHER norms, too. We agree that He used Scripture normatively. I'm waiting for those instances...

Now, if you want to drop that, and now insist that each (whether that be the EO or CC or WELS or LDS or JW or UMC, Billy Graham or me) should rather rather look to see if the position of self agrees with the position of self, then we're back to that discussion , if THAT is the best norma normans.

Wonderful. Although, how does the Jewish chant serve as the norma normans for determining, for example, if the Bishop of Rome is infallible - as one denomination among us states, dogmatically? If one is going to condemn such a few - perhaps even excommunicate and conduct wars over such - what notations in the Chant does one use to substantiate such? Either to affirm or deny the Dogma of Papal Infallibility and Superiority?

Can you show me an example in the Bible where either a Jewish or EO chant is used canonically, normatively? It might help me understand you better if I could see an example of it being so used.

The Bible does not contain pictures, nor was there film in that era; you're really stretching

... He doesn't so much as MENTION it. Now, if you are going to insist that He used it as a norma normans, where is the substantiation for your statement? Or is a statement factual if it's simply made? If so, is that a rubric you embrace for all or just you?



Now, IF Orthodox doesn't concern itself with correctness or error, doctrine or heresy, true or false - if it regards all such as moot (and thus has no teachings it embraces) or rather embraces pure relativism, then perhaps the entire topic of this thread is moot. I just don't know. But IF such things matter, then norming is accepted as sound and necessary. My question then is this: WHAT is embraced as the norma normans for such? IF it is as it is in the RCC, the views embraced by the self same (they call such "Tradition"), then self is simply looking to see if self agrees with self. IMHO, this actually is a circumvention of norming, it has replaced "is it true?" with "do I agree with myself?"




.

 

[Blackknight]

I feel like a broken record here. Holy Tradition is the guide, canon, rule, whatever you want to call it that we use.

The Orthodox Church is the body of Christ and is the pillar of truth. To be blunt, if you don't accept what the church teaches then you are anathema.

 

[Blackknight]

Aside from the fact that it is written, how does an EO know that an RC is wrong (or vice-versa)?

The first question we'd ask is if what they say agrees with Orthodoxy. Besides, RC are schismatics, that automatically makes them wrong.

 

[sunlover1]

Scripture cannot be the norma normans though, because anything written must be interpreted so there absolutely must be an authority outside the Scripture who does the interpreting. so when Jesus referenced Scripture He did so with the proper understanding in mind. The words without the proper meaning become meaningless.

I can understand why you'd come to this conclusion but if you consider
the reasons that Jesus gave for men not understanding, it has nothing to
do with the mode of communication... .IOW, whether read or heard, someone
will either understand or wont.

King James Bible
For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing,
and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear
with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted,
and I should heal them.

So it really doesnt matter if you read it or hear someone else read it, it's
actually if you're capable of understanding or not, which is dependant on
the condition of your heart.
IMO

sunlover

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Holy Tradition is the guide, canon, rule, whatever you want to call it that we use.

Ah. Some questions:

1. Who or what determines what this "Holy Tradition" is? Is it the EO? CC? Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod? The World Council of Churches? You? Me? Your Bishop? Who? What?

2. What the EO calls "Tradition" is not what the CC calls Tradition. It varies at many points - sometimes dogmatically. The Infallibility of the Papacy, the Assumption of Mary, Transubstantiation, the Filoque - oh, the list is long. What is your evidence that yours is the correct one and the CC is the wrong one?

3. Is Tradition what the EO believes? If so, then how is using the rule/caon of Tradition to evaluation if the EO is correct useful? How can looking in a mirror reveal anything but oneself?

The Orthodox Church is the body of Christ and is the pillar of truth. To be blunt, if you don't accept what the church teaches then you are anathema.

Ah, so only the Orthodox Church is Christian. Christians are anathema? Only one institution is Christian - the EO? Since the overwhelming majority of the world's 2.2 billion people are not even registered in congregations of the EO (much less are the EO denomination), they are not Christians?

But all that aside, I'm lost (my friend) as to what this has to do with the subject at hand? Why does this mean that the EO is correct in all its positions? It seems to be a backwards statement: "I'm correct, so I'm the church so I'm correct." It's just a circle. "I'm the Truth so I'm the Truth therefore I'm the Truth." Now, do you accept that rubric? If a Mormon said to you, "The LDS is the Church, the pillar of Truth, if yiou don't accept what it teaches than you are apostate" does that make it true - you'd accept that apologetic as valid and sound? If not, why do you use it?

Now, OF COURSE, you believe your position to be true (I'd respect you less if you didn't!). But that's NOT the issue before us. WE ALL THINK WE'RE RIGHT! Do we do as you did: Just proclaim we are right - so therefore we are? Is THAT the best norma normans: to see if self agrees with self?





.

 

[Blackknight]

Maybe somebody else can explain it better. To be an Orthodox Christian you must accept what the church teaches as truth, otherwise you cannot be a member.

What Mormons say or what Lutherans say has no bearing on what we teach and our history goes back far, far longer than theirs. The Roman church split off in 1054 and has introduced a lot of changes since then so they are not the same church that they were during the first millennium.

There are many reasons sola scriptura doesn't work and some of them are listed in the article I linked to earlier.

For example, what is the correct way to cross yourself? Is it even in the Bible? Last I checked it wasn't.

 

[buzuxi02]

Dear CJ,

Im not sureif your being serious about Jesus using byzantine chant or a liturgy etc or if you dont understand what worship is. Even lutherans use liturgical texts for their service.

If I believe in 'scripture only' it does not mean that i should call up the Baptists and tell them to throw out the hymn, 'Amazing Grace" because its not contained in the bible. Should the hymn be rejected because it was composed centuries later and may not be reliable in conveying christian truth soley because if its age? I could on the other hand tell them to get rid of the hymn if it teaches false doctrine. Do you see the difference?
Now of course there are byzantine and jewish chants and gregorian chants used normatively- in scripture there called the psalms! In fact entire chapters of scripture can and are sung using byzantine musical form.

And of course theres liturgical worship in heaven as described in the book of revelation. Theres the hymn of the Trisagion in Isaiah6.3 and Rev 4.8. Heavenly worship is liturgical, see Rev 5.11-14. And through out scripture there are benedictions and doxologys. This is the pattern of Orthodox worship because the NT church is the Orthodox church.

Not only is incense offered in the heavenly worship revealed in Revelations but the OT also has a prophecy of Orthodox worship in Malachi 1.11, " For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same ,My Name shall be great among the gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name and a pure offering, for my name shall be great among the heathen..."

Not only is burning incense integral part of Orthodox worship, its also common during prayers in the home. Obviously the above prophecy cannot refer to protestant gentiles.

The NT also offers a prophecy of Orthodox praxis in worship (which in this example can include the RCC and the Copts) in Luke 1.48, "For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden, Henceforth all generations shall bless me."
Now just in case someone has a problem with my translation of LK 1.48, Im using the accurate translation from the original koine. You see the english translations have been intentionally manipulated. The word blessed' in this verse is in the future verb form, it does not say makarios but makariousi. Meaning all generations shall begin blessing her in the near future. I dare any fundie to research the original greek on this verse and be shocked at how their forefathers have manipulated such passages.

Now on the other hand are you implying that in Lutheranism the reason why scripture is the sole true norm, is because the lutheran creeds and hymns and liturgical texts contain errors and heresies and thus should not be relied upon? So besides the authors of the bible, all other christian compositions are suspect (even though they are used in the prayer and worship service of your very own congregation)??

Orthodoxy sees Scripture, the Liturgical texts, the dogmas of the ecumenical councils, the sacraments, and canonical iconography as the vehicle which transmits the totality of the christian faith unadultered. These things embody the conscience of the church catholic in all places and at all times since the beginning.

Now as far as the lutheran definition of sola scripture, Orthodox has a problem with the insistence of terms such as "sole". That it is the sole true norm or that it is the only writing or vehicle for transmitting the faith which has ever been divinely inspired.
Its actually quite naive to think that after the final book of scripture was written nothing else could ever be relied upon, and all must remain static.

Now if anyone would like written sources outside of scripture then i point you to the Didache, the epistles of Ignatius, the epistle of Clement of Rome, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the fragments of Hegesipus etc.
etc
Then theres the experiences of the christian life found in the sacrament of baptism in triple immersion, the sacrament of the Eucharist which is called a bloodless sacrifice since the late first century when pagan romans accused christians of being cannibals. The annointing of the sick with olive oil, the laying on of hands and theosis were all instituted and opened to us by Christ. Then theres the catacombs and the martyriums and the ancient liturgy of James, brother of the Lord, first bishop of the church in Jerusalem

Now if you want to know what is the true norm I suggest reading Irenaeous and Vincent of Lerins and Ignatius and Justin Martyr .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Maybe somebody else can explain it better. To be an Orthodox Christian you must accept what the church teaches as truth, otherwise you cannot be a member.

What Mormons say or what Lutherans say has no bearing on what we teach and our history goes back far, far longer than theirs. The Roman church split off in 1054 and has introduced a lot of changes since then so they are not the same church that they were during the first millennium.

There are many reasons sola scriptura doesn't work and some of them are listed in the article I linked to earlier.

For example, what is the correct way to cross yourself? Is it even in the Bible? Last I checked it wasn't.

Don't know, as I never do it

 

[jckstraw72]

Now if you want to know what is the true norm I suggest reading Irenaeous and Vincent of Lerins and Ignatius and Justin Martyr .

oooh oooh!

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God-namely, strange doctrines-shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud*. But such as rise up in opposition to the truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, [shall] remain among those in hell (apud inferos), being swallowed up by an earthquake, even as those who were with Chore, Dathan, and Abiron**. But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did***.
-- St. Ireneaus, Against Heresies, Book IV.XXVI.2 late 2nd century


* Lev. 10:1, 2
** Num. 16:33
*** 1 Kings (III Kings) 14:10

 

[Thekla]

.

[/color][/size][/font]
What Christ was described as doing in scripture was more than reference scripture; referencing scripture was not His only action. Sola scriptura selects one action and discards His other actions. This is inconsistent and reifies iteration and text. It reduces the person of Christ to a brain and a tongue. It replaces the person of Christ with a textual reification.[/quote]

The only things we know that Jesus DID or TAUGHT are recording in the Books of the Bible. I know the LDS disagrees, but unless we accept the unique "Scriptures" of one denomination, that's it.

Now, I think it was YOU that said that Jesus not only uses Scripture normatively, but many other things too. I presume the things the EO declares as its canon/rule/norma normans are among these. But so far, no one as been able to share even one instance of even one of these ever been used by Jesus canonically/normatively. Or any other in Scripture. So, where is your evidence that Jesus used OTHER things canonically/normatively? Where is your substantiation that Jesus used the distinctive EO things that the EO uses? I know you said it, but do you have ANYTHING to support it? I know you said you don't have time as a busy homemaker to give ALL the examples, and I want to respect that, but could you give us one example?





[/color]

Where did I say anything was "negative?" But if you think it negative, why are you defending it? I don't understand.

... because YOU agreed that Jesus used Scripture canonically/normatively, but insisted that He used OTHER things that way, too. Including the list of things the EO uses. You said you would supply the examples, where Jesus did that. That's why.








Which book embraced as Scripture do you deny as such? If you have a book containing Jesus teachings Dogmas not found in the 27 NT book, would you share it?

You are the one who made your point that while Jesus did use Scripture canonically, He used a host of OTHER things, too. You said you would give the examples of this. Of course, this is to include the list of things the EO uniquely uses as its canon. Then you said you were too busy to give all of them. So I requested just one of them. Now, I'm just waiting for that. It was your arguement. Scripture is used canoncially (and perhaps you want to go one to say it should be), BUT (your key point) He used all these other EO things, too. All I asked if for an example of such.

If a Mormon told you that Jesus refered to the Book of Mormon as the Word of God and God's Revelation, the canon for evaluating truth, would you ask him/her where? For an example of such? I have a hunch you might. But perhaps your rubric is that if a person says something, it's thereby dogmatically factual, or that it simply is entirely moot if such is true or false, right or wrong - for what is said/taught/claimed about Jesus doesn't matter?





You are the one insisting that He used OTHER norms, too. We agree that He used Scripture normatively. I'm waiting for those instances...

Now, if you want to drop that, and now insist that each (whether that be the EO or CC or WELS or LDS or JW or UMC, Billy Graham or me) should rather rather look to see if the position of self agrees with the position of self, then we're back to that discussion , if THAT is the best norma normans.







... He doesn't so much as MENTION it. Now, if you are going to insist that He used it as a norma normans, where is the substantiation for your statement? Or is a statement factual if it's simply made? If so, is that a rubric you embrace for all or just you?



Now, IF Orthodox doesn't concern itself with correctness or error, doctrine or heresy, true or false - if it regards all such as moot (and thus has no teachings it embraces) or rather embraces pure relativism, then perhaps the entire topic of this thread is moot. I just don't know. But IF such things matter, then norming is accepted as sound and necessary. My question then is this: WHAT is embraced as the norma normans for such? IF it is as it is in the RCC, the views embraced by the self same (they call such "Tradition"), then self is simply looking to see if self agrees with self. IMHO, this actually is a circumvention of norming, it has replaced "is it true?" with "do I agree with myself?"




.

OK, Josiah

I gave a link which gives a partial list of scriptural references re: Liturgy.
Absent a direct response from you, I am unable to determine how close or far that is from what you have in mind.

Do you require scriptural reference which includes the words "EO Liturgy" ?

Please offer a further description of what you're asking for.

As for notion of the norming by agreeing with self; this is exactly what the apostles did. And, how the canon of scripture was determined. When Churches do not 'agree with self', then discussion and unfortunately sometimes division occurs. The Anglicans seem to be dividing on some issues. I watched portions of the last Lutheran synod; the portion I watched did not result in a unanimous vote.

Though I suspect this is not an answer to your question (re: Liturgy), as I am not precisely sure what your question is, scripture does show that Christ ministered to persons -- the whole person (body, heart, soul, nous, spirit, etc). The Church is charged with the same - to minister to the person as a whole. Scripture alone does not minister to the person as a whole. Tradition includes the Liturgy, mysterion, etc -- an acknowledgment of and continuation of the example of Christ -- to treat as whole towards the restoration of the whole person. To do anything less would just not be scriptural

In sum, then, we are again left with the question: which is the norm, sola scriptura or the person of Christ ?

 

[Thekla]

Consider:

Christ commands (somewhat lost in translation) "when you pray, pray this" ... followed by the Lord's prayer (which does not have a clear scriptural precedent).

A command from God would be a dogma, no ?

Thus, if verbal statements in scrripture are the sole norming tool, all Christians should only pray the precise words of the Lord's prayer when praying.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

OK, Josiah

I gave a link which gives a partial list of scriptural references re: Liturgy.

Thanks. Is that an attempt to use Sola Scriptura?

Using SCRIPTURE canonically is not an example of Jesus using the EO Liturgy as such.

You agreed that Jesus used Scripture canonically, but you insisted that He used OTHER THINGS as such, too. And certainly that includes the various things that the EO says are norma normans (that list was provided to me) and that you'd provide us with the examples where Jesus uses such normatively. Then I recall you said you were too busy to list all the examples, so I asked for just one example of just one of them. And I was told you did. But when I posted I missed that and would like the post #, that (repeatedly) was ignored.

Please offer a further description of what you're asking for.

Well, ONCE AGAIN, you said that Jesus used many things as the rule/canon/norma normans. Yes, He so used Scripture (the 50 or so times He said, ".... Scripture says" and then specificly quotes such, BUT your whole point is that He didn't ONLY use Scripture thusly, He used lots of things that way. Since you are defending the EO's list of things it uses normatively, I suspect you think Jesus used those things (because you have yet to tell us WHAT things Jesus used canonically/normatively besides Scripture. only your persistent insistence that He did).

I simply asked for the support of your point. If a Mormon wrote, "Jesus often used the Book of Mormon as His rule," I have a hunch you'd respond, "where?" And if he/she could not give a single example where Jesus says, "In the Book of Mormon, it says......" as a norm for something Jesus said, then I have a hunch you'd conclude that the Mormon's dogmatic statement is simply (at most) unsubstantiated. Again, we are agreeing that Jesus used Scripture normatively (no Catholic or Mormon denies this), but it's YOUR position He used many OTHER things as such, I presume including the EO's list (since you are defending the EO's list). Okay. Where? Many posts ago, you said you'd list the Scriptures. Then you were too busy to list ALL the examples where Jesus uses EO church design, an EO chant, etc. as normative. So I asked for just one example. You said you gave it. I missed it (I've reviewed this whole thread looking for it!) and asking you for the post where you did that, repeatedly, but....

As for notion of the norming by agreeing with self; this is exactly what the apostles did.

Really? I'm just not thinking of a verse where any Apostle says, "This teaching agrees with itself so it must be dogmatically correct." What I DO recall is several examples where Peter and Paul use Scripture canonically.

But of course, I'm not an Apostle. Nor are you. And the issue is this: If self insists that the views of self are the best rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of the correctness of self, then actually, norming has actually been circumvented and evaded. Self agreeing with self only mean that self is agreeing with self (it's actually quite common), it has nothing to do with self being correct. A Mormon says that God the Father has a Father. He embraces that view as the canon for the evaluation for the evaluation of his position and asks, "Does the view that God the Father has a Father confirm with the canon that God the Father has a Father? Yes; ergo the teaching is true." Okay. I understand. He has embraced his Tradition as the Rule for the evaluation of views - including his own. Functionally, it can do only one thing: reveal self to be correct. He's just looking in a mirror at himself. I'm sure you understand this. But MY point is this: Such is a poor rule/canon/norma normans that I'm guessing YOU don't regard as having any merit (unless you agree that God the Father has a Father). Self agreeing with self has little to no relevance to self being correct. Heck, I often agree with me - and yet I fail to see you shouting, "Then Josiah MUST be correct."

In sum, then, we are again left with the question: which is the norm, sola scriptura or the person of Christ ?

Let's say "A" (LDS, RCC, WELS, UMC, Billy Graham, Mary Baker Eddy, Pope Benedict, you, me - replace "A" with whatever or whomever you want) has a position regarding Christ and Christianity. Now, IF it matters to you and the EO if this is true or not (and all here keep evading my question about that), then, in some way, to some degree, we need to evaluate the position. This is called "norming." ONE of the aspects of that is WHAT will serve as our norma normans/canon/rule.

Now, let's say the position is that Mary had pink hair. That's "A's" dogma. Now, A's Tradition is that Mary had pink hair, so it is confirmed by the Rule of Tradition, so by that norm, it's likely true. But you are suggesting we use the norma normans of Jesus. Okay. Do the world's 2.2 billion Christians use the words of Jesus as the canon to evaluate "A"? Do we use a painting down at South Hill Road Baptist Church of Jesus? Do we use my spiritual relationship to Jesus? How is any of this going to help us determine the color of Mary's hair?

I agree that our hearts, our lives, are to conform to the image of Christ - so that in THAT sense, He is our rule. But that has nothing to do with a norma normans - which is the sole issue of Sola Scriptura. And I doubt that the hearts of the 2.2 billion Christians are going to give us much workable in terms of what color hair Mary had/has. So, we have division, disunity at the level of DOGMA. Perhaps resulting is excommunications, condemnations, people burned at the stake. OR pure relativism, in all matters; orthodoxy thus being impossible to determine - at any level about anything; NO basis to say the Mormon is incorrect only that my heart doesn't agree with his; NO basis to say "this is true" only (at best) I feel this way, you feel that way, we both must be right." Is THAT what Jesus modeled in His preaching? Everyone is right if their heart says they are? That truth doesn't matter and cannot in any sense be determined? If not, WHAT norma normans did He use? And did Jesus state that if one agrees with self, that becomes a dogmatic fact?





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thus, if verbal statements in scrripture are the sole norming tool, all Christians should only pray the precise words of the Lord's prayer when praying.

And you are diverting into another issue: arbitration. But yes, if we look to Scripture to answer that, then Scripture would be our rule. IN THE ARBITRATIVE PROCESS, it is likely to be pointed out that there's no Scripture that says, "ONLY pray this....." I suspect that would be important to the discussion since what you are suggesting hinges entirely on that point. But I'm just not aware that's doctrine anywhere.


I'm not aware that any claim as dogma that we can ONLY pray the Lord's Prayer and CANNOT pray anything otherwise. But if there was, and we thus might desire to evaluate that (and I still don't know if EO's care about truth or not), then I guess we could ask the one with that Dogma, "Does that view confirm to your Tradition?" It probably does, so by your rubric, it's a dogmatic fact. Or I guess we could ask all 2.2 billion Christians, "Does this dogma conform to your feelings about the image of Christ?" But I'm not sure that gets us anywhere. Or, I suppose, we could look at Scriptures and see if it indicates that we may ONLY pray THIS prayer, but we are off topic (AGAIN), this thread is not about the WHO or HOW of arbitration, it's about the WHAT that will serve as the norma normans.




.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-


Its actually quite naive to think that after the final book of scripture was written nothing else could ever be relied upon, and all must remain static.

Wow, you sound RC.

-snip-

Now if you want to know what is the true norm I suggest reading Irenaeous and Vincent of Lerins and Ignatius and Justin Martyr .

Wow, it's finally admitted. Thus it is written by Irenaeous, Vincent, Ignatius, and Justin.

Even when Justin Martyr alters the clear meaning of Scripture:

"For it was not without design that the prophet Moses, when Hur and Aaron upheld his hands, remained in this form until evening. For indeed the Lord remained upon the tree almost until evening, and they buried Him at eventide; then on the third day He rose again."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.xli.html (chapter XCVII, (97), Dialogue with Trypho)

(not to derail)

 

[Thekla]

And you are diverting into another issue: arbitration. But yes, if we look to Scripture to answer that, then Scripture would be our rule. IN THE ARBITRATIVE PROCESS, it is likely to be pointed out that there's no Scripture that says, "ONLY pray this....." I suspect that would be important to the discussion since what you are suggesting hinges entirely on that point. But I'm just not aware that's doctrine anywhere.

The verbal commands of Christ are clear and occur throughout the NT. Do you mean that the commands of Christ are not commands until we decide they are ? This elevates the created above the Creator !

Christ commands "when you pray, pray this" and then verbally iterates the "Lord's Prayer". If only the verbal statements are the norm, no Christian should pray any words other than "Our Father ...". That any Christian does otherwise suggests that either these Christians are clearly not using the verbal statements of Christ as the norm, or that there is a norm beyond the verbal statements of Christ.

I'm not aware that any claim as dogma that we can ONLY pray the Lord's Prayer and CANNOT pray anything otherwise. But if there was, and we thus might desire to evaluate that (and I still don't know if EO's care about truth or not), then I guess we could ask the one with that Dogma, "Does that view confirm to your Tradition?" It probably does, so by your rubric, it's a dogmatic fact. Or I guess we could ask all 2.2 billion Christians, "Does this dogma conform to your feelings about the image of Christ?" But I'm not sure that gets us anywhere. Or, I suppose, we could look at Scriptures and see if it indicates that we may ONLY pray THIS prayer, but we are off topic (AGAIN), this thread is not about the WHO or HOW of arbitration, it's about the WHAT that will serve as the norma normans.

By this do you mean that Christ's command re: the "Lord's Prayer" is difficult to understand ? Or that what Christ commands is not a command until humans arbitrate the matter ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Christ commands "when you pray, pray this" and then verbally iterates the "Lord's Prayer".

1. You're changing topics (AGAIN) and continuing to avoid all my questions and requests about this topic.

2. If you want to talk about arbitration, start a thread on it. This one is about the embraced rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of positions.

3. IF one had a doctrine that said what you are proposing, that we can ONLY pray the Lord's Prayer, and IF the EO thinks it matters if that doctrine is true or not (and, interestingly, no EO will tell me if it does - if it cares at all about truth or error), then WE might want to evaluate if that doctrine is correct. Now, in the praxis of Sola Scriptura, it would be relevant to see if Scripture indicates that we may pray ONLY that prayer. But then we are talking about arbitration - another issue. Sola Scriptura (the topic of this thread) doesn't address arbitration, it addresses the norm.

If only the verbal statements are the norm, no Christian should pray any words other than "Our Father ...".

1. Maybe you are confusing Scripture Alone with "Red words in the text alone?" Who said the norm should be the words of Jesus and the rest of Scripture (probably 95% of it) should be disregarded?

2. Again, IF the dogma was, "We can ONLY pray the Lord's Prayer" as you suggest, then the issue becomes (if the EO cares about teachings) whether it is true that we can ONLY pray THAT prayer. If we embraced Scripture as the rule, that would be the canon used. If we embrace the Tradition of the one so claiming, then "We can ONLY pray the Lord's Prayer" would be the norm for evaluating whether it's true that we can ONLY pray the Lord's Prayer. But we are off topic. The EVALUATING (arbitration) however is another issue for another day and thread, this one is about the embraced canon.





.

 

[Thekla]

Thanks. Is that an attempt to use Sola Scriptura?

Using SCRIPTURE canonically is not an example of Jesus using the EO Liturgy as such.

You agreed that Jesus used Scripture canonically, but you insisted that He used OTHER THINGS as such, too. And certainly that includes the various things that the EO says are norma normans (that list was provided to me) and that you'd provide us with the examples where Jesus uses such normatively. Then I recall you said you were too busy to list all the examples, so I asked for just one example of just one of them. And I was told you did. But when I posted I missed that and would like the post #, that (repeatedly) was ignored.

And I asked for the scripture that listed the NT canon, which you failed to provide. I have consistently stated that Christ is the norm; you have argued that scripture is the norm.

What Christ did he blessed; he did not only use scripture. I have answered consistently on this matter - but you seem to find what I say hard to understand. In short, you have narrowed your question to reflect your bias: that only one of the many actions of Christ is normative. Thus, your questions and your understanding both reflect your distortion.

It thus seems that the utilization of sola scriptura, over time, replaces the wholeness of Christ with just His tongue and brain; a grotesque.

Christ worshipped in the particular communal manner which was commanded by God. This manner, or "genre" if you will, is maintained by the EO Liturgy. In the OT it is commanded, in the NT it is blessed by the action of Christ's participation, and is updated to reflect the revelation of Christ experienced by the apostles. To demand an explicit scriptural reference is to treat scripture as a legalistic text rather than a spiritual tome; this is my other criticism of sola scriptura based on my experience here. Having made a grotesque, the scripture (and the use as well as understanding of scripture) becomes also a distortion.

Well, ONCE AGAIN, you said that Jesus used many things as the rule/canon/norma normans. Yes, He so used Scripture (the 50 or so times He said, ".... Scripture says" and then specificly quotes such, BUT your whole point is that He didn't ONLY use Scripture thusly, He used lots of things that way. Since you are defending the EO's list of things it uses normatively, I suspect you think Jesus used those things (because you have yet to tell us WHAT things Jesus used canonically/normatively besides Scripture. only your persistent insistence that He did).

I have described this in several longer posts; it seems that our adherence to different norms (sola scriptura versus the person of Christ) make communication on this matter impossible.

Scripture, dogma, all these things will become legalistic recourse if there is no understanding of the PURPOSE of these things, and the recognition of God as the norm.

I simply asked for the support of your point. If a Mormon wrote, "Jesus often used the Book of Mormon as His rule," I have a hunch you'd respond, "where?" And if he/she could not give a single example where Jesus says, "In the Book of Mormon, it says......" as a norm for something Jesus said, then I have a hunch you'd conclude that the Mormon's dogmatic statement is simply (at most) unsubstantiated. Again, we are agreeing that Jesus used Scripture normatively (no Catholic or Mormon denies this), but it's YOUR position He used many OTHER things as such, I presume including the EO's list (since you are defending the EO's list). Okay. Where? Many posts ago, you said you'd list the Scriptures. Then you were too busy to list ALL the examples where Jesus uses EO church design, an EO chant, etc. as normative. So I asked for just one example. You said you gave it. I missed it (I've reviewed this whole thread looking for it!) and asking you for the post where you did that, repeatedly, but....

I have repeatedly given descriptions to help you understand. I have also asked you to clear up the inconsistency in the sola scriptura position using scripture - a task which you have not undertaken. I have come to think you have refused to answer me or to dialogue because you cannot show the scripture to resolve the inconsistency in your position.

If you want to keep up a monologue with yourself, why bother to repeat your questions to me

Really? I'm just not thinking of a verse where any Apostle says, "This teaching agrees with itself so it must be dogmatically correct." What I DO recall is several examples where Peter and Paul use Scripture canonically.

But of course, I'm not an Apostle. Nor are you. And the issue is this: If self insists that the views of self are the best rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of the correctness of self, then actually, norming has actually been circumvented and evaded. Self agreeing with self only mean that self is agreeing with self (it's actually quite common), it has nothing to do with self being correct. A Mormon says that God the Father has a Father. He embraces that view as the canon for the evaluation for the evaluation of his position and asks, "Does the view that God the Father has a Father confirm with the canon that God the Father has a Father? Yes; ergo the teaching is true." Okay. I understand. He has embraced his Tradition as the Rule for the evaluation of views - including his own. Functionally, it can do only one thing: reveal self to be correct. He's just looking in a mirror at himself. I'm sure you understand this. But MY point is this: Such is a poor rule/canon/norma normans that I'm guessing YOU don't regard as having any merit (unless you agree that God the Father has a Father). Self agreeing with self has little to no relevance to self being correct. Heck, I often agree with me - and yet I fail to see you shouting, "Then Josiah MUST be correct."

The norm is the person of Christ. That simple.


I have no interest in going on and on and on and on about the Mormons


And absent any scriptural support for the canon of your norm (scripture), I wonder how you can treat your canon of scripture as anything other than people agreeing with themselves. Your canon of scripture, your norma normans doesn't meet the standard you claim for the praxis of sola scriptura.

Let's say "A" (LDS, RCC, WELS, UMC, Billy Graham, Mary Baker Eddy, Pope Benedict, you, me - replace "A" with whatever or whomever you want) has a position regarding Christ and Christianity. Now, IF it matters to you and the EO if this is true or not (and all here keep evading my question about that), then, in some way, to some degree, we need to evaluate the position. This is called "norming." ONE of the aspects of that is WHAT will serve as our norma normans/canon/rule.

I'm not intending to evade; we just have such a different norm that we can't dialogue.

Now, let's say the position is that Mary had pink hair. That's "A's" dogma. Now, A's Tradition is that Mary had pink hair, so it is confirmed by the Rule of Tradition, so by that norm, it's likely true. But you are suggesting we use the norma normans of Jesus. Okay. Do the world's 2.2 billion Christians use the words of Jesus as the canon to evaluate "A"? Do we use a painting down at South Hill Road Baptist Church of Jesus? Do we use my spiritual relationship to Jesus? How is any of this going to help us determine the color of Mary's hair?

You use the unormed for your norm.

I agree that our hearts, our lives, are to conform to the image of Christ - so that in THAT sense, He is our rule. But that has nothing to do with a norma normans - which is the sole issue of Sola Scriptura. And I doubt that the hearts of the 2.2 billion Christians are going to give us much workable in terms of what color hair Mary had/has. So, we have division, disunity at the level of DOGMA. Perhaps resulting is excommunications, condemnations, people burned at the stake. OR pure relativism, in all matters; orthodoxy thus being impossible to determine - at any level about anything; NO basis to say the Mormon is incorrect only that my heart doesn't agree with his; NO basis to say "this is true" only (at best) I feel this way, you feel that way, we both must be right." Is THAT what Jesus modeled in His preaching? Everyone is right if their heart says they are? That truth doesn't matter and cannot in any sense be determined? If not, WHAT norma normans did He use? And did Jesus state that if one agrees with self, that becomes a dogmatic fact?

Well, if sola scriptura is so bent on replacing the norm of Christ with another norm, I'm not interested in sola scriptura.

I am a Christian, not a "Scriptian".

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Christ did not only use scripture.

I know. It is your point. But you consistently fail to supply a single example of where Jesus used ANY other rule/canon/norma normans. Much less that He used the EO's.

I have described this in several longer posts; it seems that our adherence to different norms (sola scriptura versus the person of Christ) make communication on this matter impossible.

Sola Scriptura and the rule of the image of Christ are not rules in the same sense, as you well know.

As I've pointed out, the 2.2 billion Christians looking to "the image of Christ" is not likely to provide much help on a dogma of Mary having pink hair.

Again, IF the EO doesn't care what's true or false about Mary (or Christ or anything) - and interestingly, no Orthodox will answer that oft repeated question of mine - then I guess it doesn't matter who teaches what, and our subject of norming is moot. Or if the EO embraces pure relativism so that if one says Mary had pink hair - then that's dogma for him and just as true as one that says Mary had no hair. BUT if (and I'm left thinking the answer is no) IF it matters in the EO what is taught, then that suggests norming, and that requires a discussion of WHAT serves as OUR norma normans for that.

Well, if sola scriptura is so bent on replacing the norm of Christ with another norm

Not at all. They are rules in different senses, and I do not believe that Scripture and Christ are unrelated, I believe that Scripture is Christocentric.






.

 

[Thekla]

I know. It is your point. But you consistently fail to supply a single example of where Jesus used ANY other rule/canon/norma normans. Much less that He used the EO's.

Christ is the norm. Everything He did is a norm. Everything. Even when He didn't cite scripture to support or explain what He was doing.

Sola Scriptura and the rule of the image of Christ are not rules in the same sense, as you well know.

What is the "rule of the image of Christ" ??[/quote]

As I've pointed out, the 2.2 billion Christians looking to "the image of Christ" is not likely to provide much help on a dogma of Mary having pink hair.

If the praxis of sola scriptura defined what scripture is (it doesn't) and defined the purpose of dogma (it doesn't) it wouldn't be mucking around with hair color as a dogma

Again, IF the EO doesn't care what's true or false about Mary (or Christ or anything) - and interestingly, no Orthodox will answer that oft repeated question of mine - then I guess it doesn't matter who teaches what, and our subject of norming is moot. Or if the EO embraces pure relativism so that if one says Mary had pink hair - then that's dogma for him and just as true as one that says Mary had no hair. BUT if (and I'm left thinking the answer is no) IF it matters in the EO what is taught, then that suggests norming, and that requires a discussion of WHAT serves as OUR norma normans for that.

Caring about what is true and false requires "norming" to the person of Christ, Who is truth.




[/quote]Not at all. They are rules in different senses, and I do not believe that Scripture and Christ are unrelated, I believe that Scripture is Christocentric. [/quote]






Scripture, the canon, uses Christ as the norm ...
If Christ was not known and experienced,
what would the NT be normed to ?

Scripture cannot be called Christocentric unless Christ is the norm and is known.

...you're replacing the norm, Christ, with a text; you distort the use and the understanding of the text (scripture) by elevating it above that which it was normed to. This is deeply sad.

 

[racer]

This critique is equally applied, it seems to me, to the embrace of the sola scriptura practice; sola scriptura (as evidenced by scripture) is a man-made method.

How so? By reading Scripture and believing what is revealed to me in it?

So, you want verses to support my assertions? I can do that.

Acts 15:20;But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.

Acts 15:21; For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Acts 15:22; Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

Acts 15:23; And they wrote [letters] by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren [send] greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

Acts 15:24; Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:

Acts 15:27; We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell [you] the same things by mouth.

Acts 15:28; For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

1) So, what was the point in the elders “writing” letters which would say the same exact things that Judas and Silas were going to “tell” them?

2) How could something be read in the Synagogue if it wasn’t written down?

Mat 17:20; And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you

Mark 5:34; And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hathmadetheewhole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague

Luk 7:50; And he said to the woman, Thy faith hathsaved thee; go in peace.

If faith, according to Jesus Himself, can do all these things for us, why in the world should we put our faith in a church instead of what is revealed to us by direct inspiration from God?