EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

racer · Sep 16, 2009

Thekla said:
I'm not much familiar with Augustine (I explained the EO position re: Augustine previously).

Well, the citation is pretty clear and strait forward.

Who also appealed to Tradition.

Irrelevant. Clearly he believed Scripture to be of a more weightier authority:

for divine Scripture is sufficient above all

as above

Like I said, Augustine's beliefs are quite clear.

Arius used the scripture to support his position, too.

Sola Scriptura does not negate the possibility of people misunderstanding or misrepresenting the meaning of Scripture. Nobody has ever said that SS guarantees that all people will understand and represent Scripture correctly.

Of course we are to inquire from scripture (have you read much of Chrysostom on the reading of scripture ? pretty amazing ). And he was - as this was a homily - speaking to those in the Church;

That does not negate the fact he considered Scripture to be the higher authority. He didn't just say "inquire from Scripture," he said: I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things

the context is missing. The Church was the guidance for the interpretation.

Then please show us the context and explain how it affects the meaning of this citation.

Yup, but he speaks from within a context; his Catechetical Lectures also contain numerous supporting quotes from the Liturgy.

Come on, your skirting the issues, avoiding the assertions and not providing evidence to support your comments. So, show us how "context" clarifies this statement: this salvation which we believe
depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures

as above

Do you really think you are making headway with these comments?

Have you read Irenaeus ? I haven't -

Actually, I have read Irenaeus. He was one of the first fathers I read.

but I think it not unlikely that some of the heresies he battles claimed scriptural support.

And your point is what? The heresies he addressed were most likely based upon distorted interpretations of Scripture.

In literary analysis, one must be familiar with the authors works (rhetorical conceits, context, tone, etc.) before employing a quote -- sort of like, one should read all of Ulysses by Joyce before using a passage from the novel to argue something in general about the novel. Likewise, having read Homer's "Ulysses" would be most helpful with the understanding of Joyce's version. And then, being somewhat familiar with both, the movie "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" would be more enjoyable. But the understanding of each particular version of Ulysses relies on the familiarity with the author, era (place in history), culture, and particular genre of each particular treatment of the myth.

Thekla, this is why we provide sources (or links when available) so that people can see for themselves what is said "in context." That's how I got started reading the fathers myself. Nothing your have said address SS or invalidates it. You've only shown what we all already know--some people misrepresent and incorrectly teach SS.

This is really the same with any author, including the ECFs.

But, it does nothing to disprove the fact that many of the ECFs did teach and adhere to SS.

racer · Sep 16, 2009

Thekla said:
We don't have dictators. And he is a Saint for his repentance. But (per the EO) some of his theology is waaaaayyyyyyy off.

So, basically, EOs pick-and-choose which fathers or biblical scholars based upon who is/was in agreement with what the EOC teaches.

LittleLambofJesus · Sep 16, 2009

Thekla said:
Again, I agree

Christ's command to "follow Me" could better be translated "start now and keep on following Me". This is our daily moment to moment struggle and desire ...

What I found interesting about the greek word #5281 used in Revelation is the way it is used in the rest of the NT/NC.

It is found only 2 times in the Gospels, both in Luke [8:15, 21:19]. There are different forms of this word of course but haven't really deleved into it yet.

Matt 10:22 And ye shall be being hated by all thru the Name of Me.
The one yet enduring/upomeinaV <5278> (5660) into a-finish/teloV <5056>, this one shall be being saved/swqhsetai <4982> (5701) [Daniel 12:1/Reve 15,16]

Reve 14:12 Here [*the] endurance/upomonh <5281> of the Saints is, the ones keeping the commands of the God and the faith of Jesus.

Strong's Number G5278 matches the Greek ὑπομένω (hypomenō), which occurs 18 times in 16 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

Strong's Number G5281 matches the Greek ὑπομονή (hypomonē), which occurs 32 times in 31 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

Thekla · Sep 16, 2009

racer said:
Well, the citation is pretty clear and strait forward.

Irrelevant. Clearly he believed to be of a more weightier authority:

for divine Scripture is sufficient above all

Like I said, Augustine's beliefs are quite clear.

Sola Scriptura does not negate the possibility of people misunderstanding or misrepresenting the meaning of Scripture. Nobody has ever said that SS guarantees that all people will understand and represent Scripture correctly.

That does not negate the fact he considered Scripture to be the higher authority. He didn't just say "inquire from Scripture," he said: I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things

Then please show us the context and explain how it affects the meaning of this citation.

Come on, your skirting the issues, avoiding the assertions and not providing evidence to support your comments. So, show us how "context" clarifies this statement: this salvation which we believe
depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures
Do you really think you are making headway with these comments?

Actually, I have read Irenaeus. He was one of the first fathers I read.

And your point is what? The heresies he addressed were most likely based upon distorted interpretations of Scripture.

Thekla, this is why we provide sources (or links when available) so that people can see for themselves what is said "in context." That's how I got started reading the fathers myself. Nothing your have said address SS or invalidates it. You've only shown what we all already know--some people misrepresent and incorrectly teach SS.

But, it does nothing to disprove the fact that many of the ECFs did teach and adhere to SS.

Sola scriptura states that scripture is the sole norm. Which of the ECFs you have read states that scripture is above the "norm" of the Church ? Or the Church is "below" scripture as the norm ?

I don't have the time to read everything, nor does that exhaust the issue: but analysis that is appropriate for understanding a text (especially form a different culture, era and mindset) includes a discussion of the particular style, body of work, etc. That seems to be missing.

It may be that a difference in mindset is why you state that I am "skirting the issues" -- Josiah says the same thing. So maybe this is the "mathematical" dimension of sola scriptura - a way it "forms" the thinking.

And it still does not address the issue of whether all that is described in scripture is the norm. Nor does it address the "pieces vs. whole" question.
Or whether Christ or scripture about Christ is the norm.

Thekla · Sep 16, 2009

racer said:
So, basically, EOs pick-and-choose which fathers or biblical scholars based upon who is/was in agreement with what the EOC teaches.

As you wish.

But, in fact, the EO must adhere to what it received.

LittleLambofJesus · Sep 16, 2009

Originally Posted by racer

So, basically, EOs pick-and-choose which fathers or biblical scholars based upon who is/was in agreement with what the EOC teaches.

What do Protestants and Catholics base their teachings on? Just curious

Standing Up · Sep 16, 2009

Thekla said:
Actually, no; where there was a disagreement in interpretation, etc., Tradition (what was received/what has always been believed) was what was 'kept', and used to refute heresy.

Certainly, the ECFs knew scripture extraordinarily well (without the tools we have at hand now ). One cannot underestimate the value of scripture to the ECFs, to the EO, just because we do not embrace sola scriptura.

Here's Polycarp on the subject and his advice circa 155:

For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;3 and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning; watching unto prayer, and persevering in fasting; beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God not to lead us into temptation, as the Lord has said: The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Return to scripture, the oracles, the word handed down from the beginning.

racer · Sep 16, 2009

Thekla said:
Sola scriptura states that scripture is the sole norm. Which of the ECFs you have read states that scripture is above the "norm" of the Church ? Or the Church is "below" scripture as the norm ?

Just as with the Trinity, which is never "labelled" as the Trinity, it is clearly defined within Scripture. So, none of the ECFs actually stated or used the term, Sola Scriptura, what they taught regarding Scripture is what is now referred to as SS.

I don't have the time to read everything, nor does that exhaust the issue: but analysis that is appropriate for understanding a text (especially form a different culture, era and mindset) includes a discussion of the particular style, body of work, etc. That seems to be missing.

Then, take at least one of the citations and break down for us how exactly it doesn't mean what it is explicitly states. You can't keep making the same assertions with no type of evidence or substantiation and expect people to accept what you say as truth or fact.

It may be that a difference in mindset is why you state that I am "skirting the issues" -- Josiah says the same thing.

Because you are. You keep saying the same things over and over. So, if one of the quotes I've provided would actlually mean just the oppostie of what it says, then please exxplain to us how the context will affect what is being said.

It's not a valid argument to continually state that something doesn't ean what it is being represented to mean because it is being quoted out of context. We're not allowed to quote entire sources. Therefore, we can only cite certain parts and provide a link or source to refer people who want to read the text for themselves.

And . . .how does someone keep asserting that texts are being quoted out of context if they haven't actually read the entire text themselves?

So maybe this is the "mathematical" dimension of sola scriptura - a way it "forms" the thinking.

No, SS does not "form" thinking.

And it still does not address the issue of whether all that is described in scripture is the norm.

Well, it's not my personal argument but, let me refresh your memory:

I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things

And, please explain how you can ignore this statement:

this salvation which we believe
depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures

Nor does it address the "pieces vs. whole" question.
Or whether Christ or scripture about Christ is the norm.

I think you may want to take some time to re-read the quotes I provided, maybe even check them out "in context."

racer · Sep 16, 2009

LittleLambofJesus said:
What do Protestants and Catholics base their teachings on? Just curious

Well, I certainly can't speak for the Catholics, nor even all Protestants, however, most base their teachings on Scripture. Does that mean that everybody has it exactly the same or correct? Probably not. I just have faith that the Spirit dwells in my heart and is guiding me daily.

racer · Sep 16, 2009

Kristos said:
Great, so now we agree that I have a definition of SS and you have a definition of SS. Which one is correct? According to my definition of SS we must consult Scripture to resolve this dispute!

Mine, of course. You clearly have no firm grasp on SS.

Mat 18:15

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Mat 18:16But if he will not hearthee, thentake with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mat 18:17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tellitunto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Seems like we have passed up the first two steps already, so we need to take it to the church. So who is that? Interesting that it doesn't say take it Scripture. So, are we supposed to listen to both the church and to scripture?

First, these verses are not speaking of church doctrine regarding our salvation. So, it's a moot point.

However, if your point was valid, then since you and I don't agree, whose church do we take it to?

racer · Sep 16, 2009

Thekla said:
As you wish.

But, in fact, the EO must adhere to what it received.

Unless, of course, it happens to be an ECF like Augustine, who the EOC apprently contradicts on some teachings.

So, how does the EOC determine what parts of "what it received" to accept?

Standing Up · Sep 16, 2009

Originally Posted by Standing Up

The pattern set in Exodus was until sunset. Justin Martyr changes it to almost sunset to follow his Tradition and as a result, folks believe as you say.

There was another Tradition that went through Christ the apostles to bishops like Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates who believed Christ was on the cross until sunset just as OT scripture says. Then they wrote the NT exactly the same.

Thekla said:
John doesn't, nor Luke; both say on Friday (paraskeui/preparation). Matthew doesn't say explicitly, and Mark states "opsios" for the burial time (as in my post, anytime between 3pm and sunset).

Further, in Jewish tradition, iirc, the body must be buried within 24 hours. Using Matthew (opsios): the account states He said "it is finished at 3pm". Opsios is 3 and after. Thus, the entombment would be outside the 24 hour range.

The body was buried within 6 or so hours after death. It is finished Jesus said in the ninth hour/about 3pm. Does the sun set then? No, in Jerusalem at Passover it sets/goes in about 6pm.

As foreshadowed by Moses, Christ was on the cross until evening/sunset/going in of the sun.

But, Justin adds to scripture, saying "almost until evening/sunset". Almost, like 3pm maybe, His hands came down. You know that Tradition.

Kristos · Sep 16, 2009

racer said:
Unless, of course, it happens to be an ECG like Augustine, who the ECO apparently contradicts on some teachings.

So, how does the ECO determine what parts of "what it received" to accept?

It is guided by the Holy Spirit, as one body. In practice, it happens in many ways, sometimes the process takes hundreds of years to sort itself out, but in the end there is a catholic understanding of what is orthodox and what is not. Orthodox patristic studies are very focused on the the whole, not just this quote or that quote. Augustine is accepted as ECG, and as a Saint in the OE. Some of what he said might be difficult to completely reconcile with other Emfs, but when studied as a whole even his teachings are generally consistent with Orthodoxy and often get a bad rap because of how they have been used by those outside of the church. We might even find value in works by non-ECG, like Origin, who's essay "On Pray" is a wonderful read, while other things he wrote were later denounced as heresy.

Standing Up · Sep 16, 2009

Rdr Iakovos said:
Rather, Rome has ventured further and speculated more, resulting in some doctrinal differences being exacerbated

It will be interesting to see what happens if/when RCC and O come to a unity. Vat II has laid some groundwork in that direction already.

We make no such claim. "Nothing" is a very inclusive and sweeping term. We have retained what we once received, but obviously there have been changes for us, not in theology, but in praxis

Click to expand...

The Bishop does have significant oeconomia within within his See. That being said, Ignatius acted, as have we, in a concilliar fashion, wrt to matters of ecumenical import. The Bishop cannot "do whatever he wants"- or shall we have a non-Trinitarian See, a hedonistic/Nicolaitan See? No. The Holy Spirit leads the whole Church, not any one person, into "all truth."

Note that, when establishing our doctrine, we do in fact cite scripture, the scripture that we took part in canonizing. In a sense, this is circular proof. We have been accused of circular proofs, been compared to the LDS in this sense. But further dialogue on this particular matter is difficult, for most, such as the one who compares us to the LDS, are incapable of grasping the simple truth that we ALL live and believe by faith, not by so-called "proof."

I would venture that you will understand this intuitively, even if certain others are not able to.

But in the end, RCC declared at Trent that scripture and tradition are equal. What does O say?

For me, it helps to present an example to wrap my head around the concepts. So, I introduced a clear example of conflict between Tradition and Scripture with Justin Martyr. Moses foreshadowed Jesus on the cross. Scripture says His hands were up until evening. Regardless of what time you think that is (3pm or 6pm, although it is translated as sunset/6pm), Martyr adds the word "almost", as in "almost until evening". The sense is changed. A Tradition is born (or fed in this case).

Now, RCC (and/or O) might say, scripture and tradition and Pope say no problem they ("almost until evening" and "until evening") are exactly the same. It is what was handed down to us. Doesn't matter if scripture was added to or subtracted from.

I would say, no Scripture rules. (Besides, it does show up in Tradition. You may not be aware of the Tradition from Christ to the Apostles to the Bishops Polycarp, Melito, and Polycrates, but it is there. They believed Scripture--Jesus hands were up, like Moses conquering the Amalekites, until evening.)

The point is Scripture is the final rule, taking precedence over Tradition.

racer · Sep 16, 2009

Kristos said:
It is guided by the Holy Spirit, as one body.

How do 'you' know this? Do you not believe the Holy Spirit leads individuals?

In practice, it happens in many ways, sometimes the process takes hundreds of years to sort itself out, but in the end there is a catholic understanding of what is orthodox and what is not. Orthodox patristic studies are very focused on the the whole, not just this quote or that quote. Augustine is accepted as ECG, and as a Saint in the OE. Some of what he said might be difficult to completely reconcile with other Emfs, but when studied as a whole even his teachings are generally consistent with Orthodoxy and often get a bad rap because of how they have been used by those outside of the church. We might even find value in works by non-ECG, like Origin, who's essay "On Pray" is a wonderful read, while other things he wrote were later denounced as heresy.

How do you know any of this? Have you read all of Augustine's teachings? A person doesn't have to belong to the OC or the RCC to be able read St. Augustine and know what he believed or taught.

It doesn't take an infallible interpreter to discern his texts.

Standing Up · Sep 16, 2009

Kristos said:
It is guided by the Holy Spirit, as one body. In practice, it happens in many ways, sometimes the process takes hundreds of years to sort itself out, but in the end there is a catholic understanding of what is orthodox and what is not.=snip-

What would be an example of something that has taken hundreds of years to become a doctrine? Divinity of Christ?

Kristos · Sep 16, 2009

Standing Up said:
What would be an example of something that has taken hundreds of years to become a doctrine? Divinity of Christ?

veneration of icons

racer · Sep 16, 2009

Kristos said:
veneration of icons

This is doctrine? You mean that EOs must venerate icons, they have no choice?

Kristos · Sep 16, 2009

racer said:
How do 'you' know this? Do you not believe the Holy Spirit leads individuals?

How do you know any of this? Have you read all of Augustine's teachings? A person doesn't have to belong to the OC or the RCC to be able read St. Augustine and know what he believed or taught.

It doesn't take an infallible interpreter to discern his texts.

I don't know any of this, it's what I believe by faith. Certainly the HS leads individuals as well, but the real concern here is leadership of the church as the one body of Christ.

I have not read all of Augustine's works. The few that I have read entirely, I found to be very orthodox. I don't really see the relevance in this line of questions.

Infallible interpreter? What does that have to do with what I said?

Kristos · Sep 16, 2009

racer said:
This is doctrine? You mean that EOs must venerate icons, they have no choice?

We believe in freewill, so there is always a choice. And no, there are not veneration police watch to see who does and who doesn't. The 7th ecumenical council declared that the veneration of icon is proper and correct according to Scripture, through the Holy Spirit.

EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

Contributor

Contributor

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

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

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

On and on

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

On and on

Servant

On and on

Contributor

On and on

Servant

Contributor

Servant

Servant

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency