EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

[Thekla]

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?

Can faith only come through scripture ?

What's up with Abraham ?

 

[racer]

Do you rely on your own interpretations and dare to say it is from the Holy Spirit?

Yep. You don't think the Holy Spirit is leading you in your daily walk?

I've seen people wallow on the floor and tell other people what they think God told them in a moment of fleeting ecstasy.

I've yet to experience a "fleeting ecstasy."

I've seen these 'words of the Lord' contradict each other. Then, it all depends on who can convince everyone else that they're more spiritual, eh? Mass confusion, and God isn't the author of it.

No. God is not the author of confusion. But what does Scripture say about wisdom and wise people. Let's see:

1Cr 1:19; For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1Cr 1:27; But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Passing off doctrines of men as a moving of the spirit- is detestable.

Such a vehement response raises some suspicions within me. Why is it you react so harshly to what "I" a nobody as far as you are concerned do or don't believe?

I dare say what I find detestable, cuz I'd surely be banned from CF for quite some time.

 

[Blackknight]

I don't think we're making any progress here. I pray you find the truth that you seek.

 

[racer]

Can faith only come through scripture ?

What's up with Abraham ?

What do you think? Why do you ask such irrelevant questions? Faith comes from "each" individual persons heart. Our faith comes from within.

It's one thing for people to simply not understand the gist of a teaching or ideology, but quite another to continually and repeatedly misconstrue or misrepresent something that has been explained over and over. Your refusal to accept the true meaning of Sola Scriptura only serves as a stumbling block to you. A person can accurately understand and represent something and still disagree with it. But, this refusal by "clearly" wise and intelligent people to accept what has been explained to them repeatedly implies to me that certain people feel threatened by what they know--deep down--to be the true meaning. It would in some instances be the undoing of everything upon which they have based their belief system upon.

 

[racer]

I don't think we're making any progress here. I pray you find the truth that you seek.

Ditto!

 

[racer]

Can faith only come through scripture ?

What's up with Abraham ?

Well, if you'd like, I can follow-up with all of those "By faith . . ." verses.

I'm simply citing Scripture. You are perhaps reading more into my understanding of it than you should . . . .

 

[Standing Up]

Can faith only come through scripture ?

What's up with Abraham ?

We only know about Abraham because it is written. But it is explained as well.

(God) Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

But now what?

Heb. 1:2- Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

How does He speak to us today? Eyewitnesses wrote it down.

 

[Thekla]

What do you think? Why do you ask such irrelevant questions? Faith comes from "each" individual persons heart. Our faith comes from within.

It's one thing for people to simply not understand the gist of a teaching or ideology, but quite another to continually and repeatedly misconstruing or misrepresenting something that has been explained over and over. Your refusal to accept the true meaning of Sola Scriptura only serves as a stumbling block to you. A person can accurately understand and represent something and still disagree with it. But, this refusal by "clearly" wise and intelligent people to accept what has been explained to them repeatedly implies to me that certain people feel threatened by what they know--deep down--to be the true meaning. It would in some instances be the undoing of everything they have based their belief system upon.

I don't disagree with using scripture at all - I did point out that:

- I find the praxis of sola scriptura inconsistent with itself (as it demands scripture for all doctrine except scripture, as the canon of scripture is not defined by scripture).

- I think it disturbing that apparently (as described, at least)
1. the norm is not Christ but scripture
2. sola scriptura treats only some (but not all) of what Christ did as the scriptural norm; this gives rise to a distortion where it is a "part" or "pieces" of Christ recorded in scripture that is the norm, not Christ the person whole (even when the actions are recorded in scripture).

Further, absent a definition of scripture (is the scripture referred to in "sola scriptura" the words of scripture or the heart of scripture ?), and a stated understanding of the purpose of dogma and doctrine as well as the purpose of scripture, one is potentially left with a scripture that is merely words - a sort of legal text -, and a distortion of both Christ (Who is whole/person) and the scripture.

As for explanations, there have been postings that largely reiterate what has already been stated. This is not conducive to understanding when the explanation that has been given is a repetition of what didn't "work" the first time. Also, there have not been answers to the questions I've posed; in short, there has not been a dialogue. How can one come to understand in this way ?

 

[Thekla]

We only know about Abraham because it is written. But it is explained as well.

(God) Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

But now what?

Heb. 1:2- Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

How does He speak to us today? Eyewitnesses wrote it down.

How did Moses know of Abraham ?

 

[Standing Up]

How did Moses know of Abraham ?

Is that a trick question?

 

[Thekla]

Is that a trick question?

no

 

[Standing Up]

Perhaps on the Mountain then-

Ex. 24:4 Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. Then he arose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel.

 

[PassthePeace1]

Perhaps on the Mountain then-

Ex. 24:4 Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. Then he arose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel.

But Moses and the Hebrew people received their knowledge about Abraham, before Moses ever had a direct encounter with God.

 

[buzuxi02]

Wow, you sound RC.



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)

If you read the very next paragraph of my post, i gave examples of unwritten tradition. Secondly you are misinformed about why sola scripture is a heresy. Its a heresy because all those who follow it are not faithful to scripture. Orthodoxy is the only church to be faithful to scripture while all the sola scritptualists' innovate. Now what is your beef with Justin Martyr ? Considering scriptures were subjective at the time and we dont really know what his source was, why do you accuse him of being unfaithful to something he didnt have full access to? Where do you find fault in the above passage? I dont even think CJ has a problem with the above so im assuming your low church protestant, and your sola scripture mentality has a problem with how he worded something. I hope CJ sets you straight and tells you that the above isnt against (sola) scripture. Better yet why dont you two fight over how infants shouldnt be baptised since its not scriptural or in the case of CJ, it is scriptural.

 

[Blackknight]

I hate to sound offensive but our very name means "right worship." The church has been battling heresies for centuries and we have always maintained that we are the pillar of truth. There are right ways to do things and wrong ways to do things. How do we know which is which? Holy Tradition.

Part of being an Orthodox Christian is humbling your own ego.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

1. Please show that the following norma normans was used in the year 9:

The Divine Liturgy of the EO
The Holy Services of the EO
The Holy Mysteries (Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Confession, Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders, Holy Crowning, Tonsuring of Monastics, Holy Unction, Funeral Service) of the EO
The Byzantine Chant of the EO
The Temple Architecture of the EO


2. THAT something is used doesn't make it the best. The LDS uses "the three legged stool" of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium - and yet I doubt you think that's helpful or best.






WHEN a practice begins seems moot to the issue at hand, but Moses, the Apostles and Jesus all used Sola Scriptura. When was the first time Christians used the following as the norma normans?

The Divine Liturgy of the EO
The Holy Services of the EO
The Holy Mysteries (Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Confession, Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders, Holy Crowning, Tonsuring of Monastics, Holy Unction, Funeral Service) of the EO
The Byzantine Chant of the EO
The Temple Architecture of the EO


Since all the following lived before 1500 AD, how did they know about Sola Scriptura if no one had thought of this praxis yet?

"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." Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)

"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)


.









.

See above for simple deflections:
Arguing over when "Y" was established or modified, as opposed to acknowledging that 'Y' does not equal subset 'Y,' or that sola scriptura as you define it is nothing more than acknowledging that scripture is the rule (ie, canon)

This is intellectual dishonesty on your part.

In point of fact, the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostomos is an abridged version of the ST James liturgy, which is from the 1st century.

The Byzantine chant has its origins in the pre-Christian era synagogue, as do icons.

I'm not certain when the "funeral service" became one of our holy mysteries, probably sometime never. Read and learn before you speak, seriously.

I imagine that you are not aware of the history or origins of the liturgy, icons, chant, based on your fallacious arguments against its ancient origins.

Their origins can be traced back further than any NT scripture fragments, yet you accept an incomplete historical confirmation of scripture, while pointing at the alleged paucity of confirmation of certain other practices.

Further hypocritical posturing and intellectual dishonesty.
When found out to be logically fallacious, you switch topics.

But you know that already. Just letting the novice reader in on your tactics. Those of us who understand logic, rhetoric, and history see your game for what it is.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

What do you think? Why do you ask such irrelevant questions? Faith comes from "each" individual persons heart. Our faith comes from within.

New age argle bargle.
"Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of your faith."

It's one thing for people to simply not understand the gist of a teaching or ideology,

Irony for 500, Alex

but quite another to continually and repeatedly misconstruing or misrepresenting something that has been explained over and over. Your refusal to accept the true meaning of Sola Scriptura only serves as a stumbling block to you. A person can accurately understand and represent something and still disagree with it. But, this refusal by "clearly" wise and intelligent people to accept what has been explained to them repeatedly implies to me that certain people feel threatened by what they know--deep down--to be the true meaning. It would in some instances be the undoing of everything they have based their belief system upon.

Not at all. As I have stated (ibid), Sola Scriptura, as explained in these latter days, is nothing more than a redacted and truncated sense of the kanona, in English, canon, or measure.

We, like all Protestants claim to do, check our understanding against scripture. Every word or doctrine that you hold to cannot be found verbatim in scripture, but you believe, as we do, that scriptural principles bear out our belief and teaching.

That is not 'sola scriptura.' It is canon, or measure. That is what canonical scripture is the "plumb line."

Sola Scriptura means scripture alone as the guide to truth- but it scripture and reasoning or scripture and "leading of the spirit" or scripture and the teaching of the Church, or your church, or whatever. There is no such thing as scripture without a lens through which it is viewed.

That brilliant Protestant scholars cannot acknowledge this defies logic and integrity.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

(and I still don't know if EO's care about truth or not),

Classical projection.

Pretty obnoxious, even given your track record, "Josiah."

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Perhaps you are arguing for this:

2 Cor. 3:3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

Aside from the fact that it is written, how does an EO know that an RC is wrong (or vice-versa)? What rule/plumbline do you use? Each side, I suppose, can easily quote Tradition/ECF for their side. So what does one use?

Interesting question, although phrased differently than I would prefer:
We hold fast to what we have received. It is not so much that RC or Protestant are wrong, and then us, correct, but it is much more about what we have received. RC will acknowledge that in their Dogma is accreted understanding of ancient tradition- a restatement perhaps, in the vein of the Nicene Creed. Such is permissible, but through concilliar action of the whole Church, not by one Episcopate.

We have not held a council which has been deemed ecumenical since the schism. That Rome has says much about her view unto self.

 

[Standing Up]

If you read the very next paragraph of my post, i gave examples of unwritten tradition. Secondly you are misinformed about why sola scripture is a heresy. Its a heresy because all those who follow it are not faithful to scripture. Orthodoxy is the only church to be faithful to scripture while all the sola scritptualists' innovate. Now what is your beef with Justin Martyr ? Considering scriptures were subjective at the time and we dont really know what his source was, why do you accuse him of being unfaithful to something he didnt have full access to? Where do you find fault in the above passage? I dont even think CJ has a problem with the above so im assuming your low church protestant, and your sola scripture mentality has a problem with how he worded something. I hope CJ sets you straight and tells you that the above isnt against (sola) scripture. Better yet why dont you two fight over how infants shouldnt be baptised since its not scriptural or in the case of CJ, it is scriptural.

You and your household will be saved (Acts 11:14, 16:31). Matters not to me whether an infant is baptized or not. Do it and God bless you. Don't do it and God bless you.

Justin quotes the OT text, regardless of the manuscript. "Thus his hands were steady until the sun set/evening. " He then changes it to "almost sunset". O, RCC, P all do not follow scripture; you are not faithful to scripture, but follow Justin Martyr. Of course, that is what you said you did.

Further, Martyr tells you why he alters scripture---so Jesus could be buried before sunset, according to Tradition. Had he followed scripture, Jesus would be buried the next day. That is OT and NT scripture.

But we're off on a tangent.