Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am not saying that there is a contradiction between following the words of the apostles and the words that is written in doctrine. What I am saying is, just because someone claims something and said "the apostles taught them through traditions of old" should not contradict what is written in the bible. And a lot of the traditions, contradict scripture therefore I choose to follow the only thing I know to be true and anything someone tells me, I compare it to scripture, it if contradicts, I won't follow or believe it.
Yes, I agree. There are a lot of traditions out there that contradict scripture. One doesn't have to look very far to find an example. If we rely only on ourselves to discern this though, then we too are contradicting scripture. Just as the ECFs were not infalliable, neither are we. This is why Holy Tradition is so important and so scriptural, because without it, we cannot follow the scriptures ourselves.
See, I don't rely only on myself, I rely on scripture. The bible tell me that the Holy Spirit interpret it for us, and therefore as long as I continue studying the bible every day, then I allow the Holy Spirit to do His job. We can follow scripture ourselves, no where in scripture tell us that we cannot. If someone tells me something and claim that it is from scripture, then I need to compare it to scripture and make sure that what they are saying is correct, because scripture tell us that there are those who are false teachers and willingly twist scripture. If we are not in constant study then we won't know what are those false teachings. "Holy Traditions" does not stop me from understanding the bible. No where in the bible does it tell us that we cannot understand the scripture ourselves without the Holy Tradition. I do not put a trust in man to tell me about my salvation, I put my trust in God's word.
Hebrews 4:12-13
For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.
To follow that strategy, you would have to claim that you are infallible in your reading of scripture. I assume you are not claiming infallibility
Josiah said: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.
Josiah said:Well, 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.
Josiah said: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, only the action of verbalizing in reference to scripture is of value.
Josiah said: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.
We agree that Jesus used Scripture canonically/normatively. This is known as The Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura). What we are all waiting for all the "many times Jesus used OTHER THINGS" that you persistently insist that He did.
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
Josiah said: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?"
It seems the utilization of reified text has shown its resulting transformtion in action
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.
Dear CJ,
Im not sureif your being serious about Jesus using byzantine chant or a liturgy etc
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.
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?
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
2 Thess. says "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." and "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." [/quote]
Again, you are correct in noting that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the praxis of Sola Scriptura. It's yet another diversion and/or strawman....
Yes, Paul, Timothy and Silas evidently taught some things. Does that mean that what a Denomination teaches (RCC, LDS, LCMS, EO, UMC, etc.) is to be regarded as equal in normative function with God's Scripture according to this verse?
And note, it says "FROM US..." Not, "from the Bishops of the RCC or LDS."
And, of course, Sola Scriptura says NOTHING about Tradition. Positively or negatively or at all. Now, I suppose embracing Scripture ALONE as the norma normans DOES mean that therefore one's own view cannot be the final Rule for the evaluation of the self-same (creating a perfect circle of self-authentication) but the praxis itself says nothing to that. It simply suggests that ALL views (whether those of self or those of others) are subject to the SAME Canon (and yes, that could not be itself).
Acts says that the Eunich needed Stephen to explain Scripture to him. Answer: Yep, it sure does. And??? SS does not deny the need for exposition of Scripture by faithful and learned teachers, nor the need for a structured clergy that protects the church against false teachers. But those true teachers must refute heretics from a right use of Scripture.
Right. To listen to some critics, you'd think that there's no Baptist preachers or teachers, no Baptist Sunday Schools, cuz all Protestants are opposed to teaching....
Sola Scriptura has NOTHING TO DO with the importance of the activity of teaching. It does have to do with BY WHAT is a teaching to be evaluated.
5. There was no canon of Scripture until the 3rd or 4th century so Protestant's can't know which books to use. Answer: tougher to refute but not if "canon" is understood rightly. The collected works of Shakespeare contain works by that author, and they are his works because he wrote them, not because they were bound up with a table of contents. The church gradually recognized those books that are canonical but did not create the canon. If one holds this argument, does one not then conclude that nobody could have any confidence in which books were inspired, beginning with Genesis all the way down to the 3rd Century? How could a Jew have known that Isaiah was canonical?
Right.
And again, the list of books is not the praxis of Sola Scriptura. The praxis was just as valid when Scripture was just two stone tablets that Moses had brought down from the mountain. To argue that it cannot serve as a Canon because we don't know if it's FINISHED would be the same as telling a policeman who has pulled you over for speeding that he's moot because we don't know if the speed limit will someday be changed. And it's all moot anyway, there's only one denomination (the LDS) that is arguing that additional books that DO support thier unique dogmas is to be added to the Canon.
And JESUS Himself refered to Scripture (as He used Sola Scriptura). All these 300 years before the Council of Hippo and over 1500 years before the Council of Trent. Was He lying to call it Scripture when He did? To use such as normative?
The whole argument is irrelevant and moot - just a diversion from the point.
6. SS produces disunity and disagreement--if it were so clear, why don't all Protestants agree? Answer: if Holy Tradition were so clear, why don't all Orthodox agree on both Scripture and Tradition? There is unity within diversity, is there not? Unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all things. It is not S.S. that produces division but our propensity to err and our sinful pride in drawing lines where they shouldn't be drawn. This befalls every Christian body. I believe that to use this argument is to hold to a double standard.
Another excellent point....
Actually, there are 3 denominations known to me that solidly reject Sola Scriptura in favor of the norma normans of "The Three-Legged-Stool" - the RC, EO and LDS. Do they agree in all matters with each other? With ANY other than self? Where is the evidence that "The Three Legged Stool" leads to more agreement? Unless one simply defines the "stool" as WHATEVER self alone thinks - then, yes, self IS likely to agree with self. So what? I typically agree with myself, does that make me correct? If not, then why does it make the RCC or LDS correct?
Yes, I realize that the RCC alone currently agrees with the RCC alone in all matters that the RCC alone currently thinks there should be agreement upon. Can't the same be said for the other 49.999 denominations that Catholics insist exist? So what?
The Official, Historic Definition of Sola Scriptura:
"The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (Ditto, 3). "No human being's writings dare be put on a par with it, but ... everything must be subjected to it" (Ditto, 9).
"The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)
Sola Scriptura IS....
An embrace of God's written word as the final "Rule" (staight edge) or "Canon" (measuring stick) or "norma normans" to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.
Sola Scriptura is NOT....
1. Doctrine. It's praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: "The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished." Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it's praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God's inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.
2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It's not hermeneutics, it's norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.
3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura "existed" just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the "size" of the Scripture was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the "canon" (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it's moot to the praxis).
4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called "private arbitration." SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called "public arbitration." It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.
5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It's just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use star gazing as the Canon for the evaluation of doctrines.
Some Notes:
1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not "norm" this - thus we'd have an unnormed or abiblical teaching that we'd not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus' mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture to a suffient degree to be so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it's not technically a part of it.
2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn't guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.
Some quotes:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]"Let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth."
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)[/FONT]
"In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind....In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, butthere is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)
"The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)
"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast." St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)
"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).
"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)
"What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if all that is not of faith is sin' as the Apostle says, and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,' everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin." Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).
"We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture." St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)
For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)
Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)
I hope that helps.
Pax
- Josiah
.
[/FONT]
Must we keep repeating ourselves? I don't even see what your goal here is except trying to force us to accept your views.
How can a person make you come to this forum and continue to read or respond to a topic which you have no desire to learn anything about?Must we keep repeating ourselves? I don't even see what your goal here is except trying to force us to accept your views.
How can a person make you come to this forum and continue to read or respond to a topic which you have no desire to learn anything about?
I'm not trying to force anything on anybody. I'm just making sure arguments and "evidence" from the non-Protestant side are presented for ALL people to see.
How can a person make you come to this forum and continue to read or respond to a topic which you have no desire to learn anything about?
Personally, I've learned a lot from these forums. I "do" know the differences between Catholic and Orthodox. However, I still get confused as to which group is being discussed, since both tend to make very similar arguments. But, I honestly, do not argue against false or misrepresented Catholic or Orthodox doctrine. It took a while, but I finally understood the gist of Papal Infallibility or Magisterial Infallibility. I no longer argue that either group is idolatrous--not that I ever actually did, but in the beginning I was ill-informed about the issue. I understand what Perpetual Virginity is as well as the Immaculate Conception. So, when I argue against these dogmas/doctrines, I argue against a true representation of them. Actually, I readlly don't argue against particular Catholic or Orthodox doctrine . . . except Holy Tradition and The Real Presence.Honestly, I don't think many of us are here to learn...although I have picked up some things along the way
If anyone want to honestly learn about EO, they come to TAW.
You do realize that you can only speak for yourself. You may have said all you wanted/needed to say, and even heard all you wanted/needed to hear, but you can not speak for all involved in this discussion . . . .After 50 pages I think we've all said what we have to say, is there really any use in beating a dead horse?
And we've all heard this explanatiion before, also - - - even though when reading the harsh verbiage and language employed by this council, we see much condemnation there. But, once again, we are to inept to trust our own intellectual abilities and reading comprehension skills.Anathema does not mean damnation and I'm not sure if it's a term you can apply to non-Orthodox as it really refers to expulsion from the church.
Anathema - OrthodoxWiki
I definitely see a lot of heterodox views on this board though.
Just exactly what Sacred Traditions contradict Sacred Scripture?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?