EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

[daydreamergurl15]

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 - which means you could be wrong, no? Even the apostles had disagreements about what was correct. Did any of them claim to be infallible because they had received the Holy Spirit? No! They came together in a conciliar way, and worked it out together, as the church.

I would quote Paul as well, but to me this is condemnation of those try to wield its power without any authority, thus he describes it as a two-edged sword.

The bible is infalliable. And it works out that if I interpret scripture wrong, there will be a verse that contradict how I interpret it and it will correct me. That's what is so amazing about the bible, it does a very nice job of explaining itself and repeating itself in different ways. And in order for the bible to correct you, you must be in constantly studying scripture. Otherwise, some people might feel that the can never understand the bible so they don't even study it themselves.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

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

Pot Kettle Black award for 2009

 

[Thekla]

Sorry, folks for dropping out; I'll be back, but likely not til next week sometime.
I have 3 children dancing all weekend, and my time is quite limited (I'm barely home).

Just for fun, here's a clip from last year; at about 56 seconds in, the three male dancers dance in "front of the line" the line. One of those guys is my son

YouTube - Bethlehem Dance Group- Malevizioti '08

scoozie for being a proud mom

and here's another:

YouTube - Bethlehem Dance Group- Ikariotiko '08

And my daughter (who should be in bed) says, "Oh mom, put on the "Tsamiko" and the 'Tik' !"
Who am I to argue

YouTube - Bethlehem Dance Group- Tsamiko '08


YouTube - Bethlehem Dance Group- Tik '08

 

[Blackknight]

I have not read up on Sacred Traditions, I don't know any of them. But if Sacred Tradition does not contradict scripture, then theoretically, I can live my life on scripture alone and it not contradict what "Sacred Tradtion" teaches. If Sacred Tradition is derived from scripture, then I will put my trust in scripture.

But I know a lot of your "traditions" (though I don't know if they are considered sacred) contradict scripture....like going to the priest and confessing your sins and him telling you to say a couple of "Hail Mary's" and supposedly your sins are forgiven. Like calling someone "Father" or asking women to be "Nuns" something that you do not see in scripture. Throwing something called "holy water" on someone's forehead and claiming that they are baptized--in scripture people were submerged, not thrown water on forehead.

I know I said I was done here but I can't stand to see misinformation spread around.

Baptism is by triple immersion unless the person is incapable of getting in the water (bed ridden, etc.) Holy water is a blessed object but you can't just throw it on somebody and say they're baptized, it has to be done in the proper manner.

As far as monks/nuns are concerned nobody is forcing them to become ascetics, it is an entirely voluntarily vocation. We also have a LONG history of building monasteries and your attitude is simply an insult to those men and women that have dedicated their lives to God.

We do have traditions that are not word for word in scripture but that is where Holy Tradition comes in. There is no scripture on how to make the sign of the cross, there's no scripture on how to run a monastery, etc.

I always find it ironic when people reject Tradition but accept Scripture. Scripture IS Tradition in a written form and you always end up with the same old question. Who decides what is scripture and what is not? The Bible doesn't contain a list of what's canonical.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


The following was posted in the Orthodox Congregation Forum where non-Orthodox may not respond, so I'm copying it here. Since I don't have the permission of the poster, he/she will go unnamed:

I've listened to a few podcasts and read a few tracts from Orthodox converts who offer refutation of Sola Scriptura ("SS"). I recently listened to a 3-part series by Dcn. Michael Hyatt on "Intersection of East and West." While well spoken and well presented, he unfortunately offered arguments that sailed very wide of their intended mark. The "sola scriptura" held by most "protestants" today is far removed from what the Reformers themselves held to, and almost all of the arguments are directed at this flimsy substitute. So I offer just a few arguments that shouldn't be used because they're irrelevant to the discussion. I hope this will help us to better understand each other's views.
​

1. Jn. 21:25 says "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Answer: Yep, it sure does. And??? SS makes no claim that every word ever spoken by Jesus was recorded in Scripture. It only claims what John himself said a few chapters earlier (20:30-31) "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." SS teaches that all things necessary for belief unto salvation, and for holy living, are contained in Scripture--in fact are contained in John's gospel, which is "this book" to which he refers--other words and deeds are elsewhere in Scripture itself. Also note that to use this argument is to assume a burden of proof--where in Holy Tradition are the rest of Jesus' words and deeds recorded?

2. 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." Answer: Yep, it sure does. And??? SS does not claim that only what is written in ink carries authority. Tradition is real and necessary and authoritative insofar as it accords with Scripture, which is by everyone's mutual agreement the only surviving source of God-breathed revelation available to the church. Again these arguments assume a burden of proof: can it be demonstrated conclusively that these traditions, to which Paul refers, differ in content or substance from what was eventually recorded in Scripture? Can we confirm that it contained doctrine necessary for salvation not found in Scripture? As SS does not deny the authority or necessity of tradition, this argument misses the mark.

3. 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.

4. Paul's mention in 2 Tim. of "all Scripture" being inspired and profitable limits "Scripture" to just the O.T. Answer: no, it doesn't. "Scripture" is a category--all that is God-breathed is part of this category, whether written centuries before Paul, or decades later. The same goes for the Bereans "searching the Scriptures." Yes they searched the O.T. but this in no way means that S.S. limits itself to only those books. To use this argument is to fall into a categorical error.

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?

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.


​

Some Comments:

I recently listened to a 3-part series by Dcn. Michael Hyatt on "Intersection of East and West." While well spoken and well presented, he unfortunately offered arguments that sailed very wide of their intended mark. The "sola scriptura" [assumed] is far removed from what the Reformers themselves held to, and almost all of the arguments are directed at this flimsy substitute.
​

I find this OFTEN the case. Sola Scriptura, of course, is simply the embrace of God's written Scripture as the Rule/Canon/"norma normans" for the evaluation of teachings. All of the criticisms of "Sola Scriptura" are usually directed to things that aren't even Sola Scriptura but strawmen.

I'm not 100% sure it's ALWAYS intentional. When Protestants speak of the issue of norming, they at times ALSO speak of issues of hermeneutics, Tradition and a host of OTHER topics. Sadly, at times, those unfamiliar with the praxis can wrongly conclude that ALL these things are Sola Scriptura.

1. Jn. 21:25 says "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
​

Yes, this verse has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion and therefore with Sola Scriptura. UNLESS one is arguing that some NONCANONICAL book which DOES confirm their dogma SHOULD be regarded as Scripture equal to all the rest (and as far as I know, only the LDS takes this view), then the point is entirely, completely moot.

And of course the verse ONLY says that Jesus DID some things not recorded IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. It doesn't say that Jesus TAUGHT many dogmas that God choose to keep out of His Scripture to the church but instead kept it as a big, dark secret LATER to be revealed to a single denomination (again, primarily an LDS view). Did Jesus eat breakfast on Palm Sunday? Probably. Did JOHN specifically record that in his Gospel book? Nope. That's all this verse is saying. It says NOTHING to Sola Scriptura.

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)

"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]

 

[Thekla]

.


The following was posted in the Orthodox Congregation Forum where non-Orthodox may not respond, so I'm copying it here. Since I don't have the permission of the poster, he/she will go unnamed:



I hope that helps.


Pax


- Josiah





.

Actually, there is a debate subforum in TAW where non-EOrthodox are welcome to share their views and debate. Here is the link:


St. Justin Martyr's Corner: Debate an Orthodox Christian - Christian Forums


(Josiah's post has been snipped for brevity; the entire post can be referenced above.)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Sorry, folks for dropping out; I'll be back, but likely not til next week sometime.
I have 3 children dancing all weekend, and my time is quite limited (I'm barely home).

Just for fun, here's a clip from last year; at about 56 seconds in, the three male dancers dance in "front of the line" the line. One of those guys is my son

scoozie for being a proud mom

and here's another:

And my daughter (who should be in bed) says, "Oh mom, put on the "Tsamiko" and the 'Tik' !"
Who am I to argue

Ahhh. The Greek music is lovely and thanks so much for sharing those videos of your children with us!.

I am also partial to Eastern Indian music.

Even though I live in Texas, I am more partial to Cajun music than to some honky-tonk country western. I think I got hooked on it when I saw this good movie

YouTube - Cajun Song from the Movie 'Southern Comfort'

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Actually, there is a debate subforum in TAW where non-EOrthodox are welcome to share their views and debate. Here is the link:

St. Justin Martyr's Corner: Debate an Orthodox Christian - Christian Forums


(Josiah's post has been snipped for brevity; the entire post can be referenced above.)

 

[PassthePeace1]

I have not read up on Sacred Traditions, I don't know any of them. But if Sacred Tradition does not contradict scripture, then theoretically, I can live my life on scripture alone and it not contradict what "Sacred Tradtion" teaches. If Sacred Tradition is derived from scripture, then I will put my trust in scripture.

But I know a lot of your "traditions" (though I don't know if they are considered sacred) contradict scripture....like going to the priest and confessing your sins and him telling you to say a couple of "Hail Mary's" and supposedly your sins are forgiven. Like calling someone "Father" or asking women to be "Nuns" something that you do not see in scripture. Throwing something called "holy water" on someone's forehead and claiming that they are baptized--in scripture people were submerged, not thrown water on forehead.

I won't address each point one by one, because it would really derail the thread, plus there are other threads on each point you listed. But I would like to say...that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture do not contradict each other, because they are from the same source(the Deposit of Faith, left to us from the Apostles)....and are inseparable, one is not complete without the other.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I know I said I was done here but I can't stand to see misinformation spread around.

Baptism is by triple immersion unless the person is incapable of getting in the water (bed ridden, etc.) Holy water is a blessed object but you can't just throw it on somebody and say they're baptized, it has to be done in the proper manner.

There are no examples of "Holy water" in scripture and the only baptism that we see is submersion. We do not have any example of any other type of baptism nor are we told to substitute baptism any other way.

As far as monks/nuns are concerned nobody is forcing them to become ascetics, it is an entirely voluntarily vocation. We also have a LONG history of building monasteries and your attitude is simply an insult to those men and women that have dedicated their lives to God.

Christians are called to dedicate their lives to God. When you are baptized, you die to self and you live for God. The idea that monks/nuns are more dedicated then regular church folks is a sad example. If someone chooses to be a monk/nun that is their choice, but to assume that they are more dedicated is wrong. Every Christian is asked to live a godly lifestyle and that lifestyle is explained in scripture. When one is baptized the old man have died, we are a new creature in Christ.

We do have traditions that are not word for word in scripture but that is where Holy Tradition comes in. There is no scripture on how to make the sign of the cross, there's no scripture on how to run a monastery, etc.

We are not asked to make a cross and to run monasteries. But the bible described how we should live a godly life and it has described how God wants His church, body of believers, to worship Him.

I always find it ironic when people reject Tradition but accept Scripture. Scripture IS Tradition in a written form and you always end up with the same old question. Who decides what is scripture and what is not? The Bible doesn't contain a list of what's canonical.

Some have made Holy Tradition their scripture, but when you look at scripture you can see the traditions and if they don't line up then I am going to trust scripture.

The bible as a whole might have been bounded years later but rest assure, the men who bounded the bible DID NOT WRITE IT. The scriptures were written and circulating well before they were bound-read old and new testament and you will see that. So, to give credit to those who bound the bible and not give credit to the one who wrote it, Holy Spirit through men, seems weird to me. To think that man decided what was supposed to be in scripture is wrong, because scripture was already written--men, I'm sure with the help of the Holy Spirit, put it together.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

 

[buzuxi02]

Then CJ are you saying that your reason for accepting sola scripture is to promote ecumenism? To find a common denominator all can agree on? In your above illustrations it seems you want all parties to come together under one rule, for the fact of coming together and creating a megachurch of diveristy. You have tried in your posts to seperate interpretation of scripture as something different, and tried to promote only a common usage of the bible, the only motive, the only reason you would care, using your examples is if you actually are a true blue ecumenist.

 

[lionroar0]

We are not asked to make a cross and to run monasteries. But the bible described how we should live a godly life and it has described how God wants His church, body of believers, to worship Him.

How the heck do you know what God asks of an individual? What are you His personal assistant or something?

 

[Sphinx777]

How the heck do you know what God asks of an individual? What are you His personal assistant or something?

A personal assistant, or personal aide, is someone who assists in daily business and personal tasks.

For example, a businessman or businesswoman may have a personal assistant to help with time and diary management, scheduling of meetings, correspondence and note taking. The title of a business personal assistant is often shortened as "PA". There are also personal assistants who work specifically for disabled people, and whose salaries may be paid by an individual or by social services on an individual's behalf. Families in which both parents work may also employ personal assistants, often referred to as household managers. The role of a personal assistant can be varied.

 

[lionroar0]

A personal assistant, or personal aide, is someone who assists in daily business and personal tasks.

For example, a businessman or businesswoman may have a personal assistant to help with time and diary management, scheduling of meetings, correspondence and note taking. The title of a business personal assistant is often shortened as "PA". There are also personal assistants who work specifically for disabled people, and whose salaries may be paid by an individual or by social services on an individual's behalf. Families in which both parents work may also employ personal assistants, often referred to as household managers. The role of a personal assistant can be varied.

 

[MamaZ]

How the heck do you know what God asks of an individual? What are you His personal assistant or something?

No but we are His individual children. And He Speaks to us as a loving Father does.

 

[lionroar0]

No but we are His individual children. And He Speaks to us as a loving Father does.

I agree and what that He speaks to one individual and what He says may not be the business of another.

 

[Kristos]

The bible is infalliable. And it works out that if I interpret scripture wrong, there will be a verse that contradict how I interpret it and it will correct me. That's what is so amazing about the bible, it does a very nice job of explaining itself and repeating itself in different ways. And in order for the bible to correct you, you must be in constantly studying scripture. Otherwise, some people might feel that the can never understand the bible so they don't even study it themselves.

But that itself contradicts what we are told in Scripture. That would make you a church of one, which is completely and totally against Scripture. How do you reconcile that?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

There are no examples of "Holy water" in scripture

Someone please inform Naman the leper and Gehazi- their effort was fruitless and unbiblical.

Shall we explain typologies?

and the only baptism that we see is submersion. We do not have any example of any other type of baptism nor are we told to substitute baptism any other way.

Again, scripture refutes your statement, and any Pentecostal would remind you of a certain other baptism.

Christians are called to dedicate their lives to God. When you are baptized, you die to self and you live for God. The idea that monks/nuns are more dedicated then regular church folks is a sad example.

No, there are no biblical examples of people who lived in the desert, eating what they could in solitude, preparing the way of the Lord.

If someone chooses to be a monk/nun that is their choice, but to assume that they are more dedicated is wrong. Every Christian is asked to live a godly lifestyle and that lifestyle is explained in scripture. When one is baptized the old man have died, we are a new creature in Christ.

Agreed- why we would assume they were more dedicated merely on the basis of their dedication? Silly idea.

We are not asked to make a cross and to run monasteries. But the bible described how we should live a godly life and it has described how God wants His church, body of believers, to worship Him.

Nor are you told to bow in prayer, or gather into churches, or sing from hymnals- or NOT to do any of the aforementioned. Your argument is very weak, and has Fundamentalist baggage in tow. You are majoring on the minors. Making the sign of the cross, or not, shows nothing of the truth within the heart. Therefore, why do you judge?

Some have made Holy Tradition their scripture, but when you look at scripture you can see the traditions and if they don't line up then I am going to trust scripture.

I am awestruck by the lack of self-awareness among the bible-only crowd who say how something doesn't "line up" with scripture- according to what interpretation- or rather, interpretive tradition? Or for that matter, bible-only is a tradition, and those who defend it often look for the ECFs (apostolic tradition)to back their tradition.

Blind guides, these who dwell in the darkness of their lack of self-insight.

The bible as a whole might have been bounded years later but rest assure, the men who bounded the bible DID NOT WRITE IT.

They based their canon ("bounded?" What is that?) upon APOSTOLIC TRADITION)

The scriptures were written and circulating well before they were bound-read old and new testament and you will see that. So, to give credit to those who bound the bible and not give credit to the one who wrote it, Holy Spirit through men, seems weird to me. To think that man decided what was supposed to be in scripture is wrong, because scripture was already written--men, I'm sure with the help of the Holy Spirit, put it together.

I'll take contradictions for $400, Alex.

Men didn't write it, but Holy Spirit did....yet Holy Spirit led men to recognize it, but not to recognize the correct reading of it.
My forehead is sore from self-slapping.

ereni

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


The following was posted in the Orthodox Congregation Forum where non-Orthodox may not respond, so I'm copying it here. Since I don't have the permission of the poster, he/she will go unnamed:

I've listened to a few podcasts and read a few tracts from Orthodox converts who offer refutation of Sola Scriptura ("SS"). I recently listened to a 3-part series by Dcn. Michael Hyatt on "Intersection of East and West." While well spoken and well presented, he unfortunately offered arguments that sailed very wide of their intended mark. The "sola scriptura" held by most "protestants" today is far removed from what the Reformers themselves held to, and almost all of the arguments are directed at this flimsy substitute. So I offer just a few arguments that shouldn't be used because they're irrelevant to the discussion. I hope this will help us to better understand each other's views.
​

1. Jn. 21:25 says "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Answer: Yep, it sure does. And??? SS makes no claim that every word ever spoken by Jesus was recorded in Scripture. It only claims what John himself said a few chapters earlier (20:30-31) "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." SS teaches that all things necessary for belief unto salvation, and for holy living, are contained in Scripture--in fact are contained in John's gospel, which is "this book" to which he refers--other words and deeds are elsewhere in Scripture itself. Also note that to use this argument is to assume a burden of proof--where in Holy Tradition are the rest of Jesus' words and deeds recorded?

2. 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." Answer: Yep, it sure does. And??? SS does not claim that only what is written in ink carries authority. Tradition is real and necessary and authoritative insofar as it accords with Scripture, which is by everyone's mutual agreement the only surviving source of God-breathed revelation available to the church. Again these arguments assume a burden of proof: can it be demonstrated conclusively that these traditions, to which Paul refers, differ in content or substance from what was eventually recorded in Scripture? Can we confirm that it contained doctrine necessary for salvation not found in Scripture? As SS does not deny the authority or necessity of tradition, this argument misses the mark.

3. 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.

4. Paul's mention in 2 Tim. of "all Scripture" being inspired and profitable limits "Scripture" to just the O.T. Answer: no, it doesn't. "Scripture" is a category--all that is God-breathed is part of this category, whether written centuries before Paul, or decades later. The same goes for the Bereans "searching the Scriptures." Yes they searched the O.T. but this in no way means that S.S. limits itself to only those books. To use this argument is to fall into a categorical error.

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?

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.


​

Some Comments:

I recently listened to a 3-part series by Dcn. Michael Hyatt on "Intersection of East and West." While well spoken and well presented, he unfortunately offered arguments that sailed very wide of their intended mark. The "sola scriptura" [assumed] is far removed from what the Reformers themselves held to, and almost all of the arguments are directed at this flimsy substitute.
​

I find this OFTEN the case. Sola Scriptura, of course, is simply the embrace of God's written Scripture as the Rule/Canon/"norma normans" for the evaluation of teachings. All of the criticisms of "Sola Scriptura" are usually directed to things that aren't even Sola Scriptura but strawmen.

I'm not 100% sure it's ALWAYS intentional. When Protestants speak of the issue of norming, they at times ALSO speak of issues of hermeneutics, Tradition and a host of OTHER topics. Sadly, at times, those unfamiliar with the praxis can wrongly conclude that ALL these things are Sola Scriptura.

1. Jn. 21:25 says "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
​

Yes, this verse has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion and therefore with Sola Scriptura. UNLESS one is arguing that some NONCANONICAL book which DOES confirm their dogma SHOULD be regarded as Scripture equal to all the rest (and as far as I know, only the LDS takes this view), then the point is entirely, completely moot.

And of course the verse ONLY says that Jesus DID some things not recorded IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. It doesn't say that Jesus TAUGHT many dogmas that God choose to keep out of His Scripture to the church but instead kept it as a big, dark secret LATER to be revealed to a single denomination (again, primarily an LDS view). Did Jesus eat breakfast on Palm Sunday? Probably. Did JOHN specifically record that in his Gospel book? Nope. That's all this verse is saying. It says NOTHING to Sola Scriptura.

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]