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.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear in the first post. I acknowledged the wealth of apologetic material in the Church fathers. However, I think it is encumbent on the apologist to show what he or she is able to do with the historical sources and with Scripture. This involves countering and answering with specific citations.
.
.
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:
Please let me know if I missed something from your post. When you are speaking about reason, reason is completely and utterly useless if the person youre reasoning with is not prepared to hear the word of God. And I think that has a lot to do with perspective.
Yeznik said:Let me give you an example. When people approach me and ask me if I believe in Jesus Christ, I admit that He is Lord and Savior of mankind, and the next question I have been asked is what type of church I got to, and I reply, the Armenian Church. Then the immediate question I get asked is is it a bible based church. For this I reply no, my church is not a bible based church, it is a Jesus based church specifically built on His Resurrection.
The "historical sources" are Christ expressed in the lives of the Saints; in this sense apologetics is not what is reasoned but the living witness experienced.
As elder Paisios says, the Saints interpret the Gospel for us. History is not some dead thing, but the record of Christ lived out in and through His people.
"Weak arguments," indeed. How can we argue against the notion that scripture is the rule? That is the meaning of the word canon. So you have come around to the notion that canon is canon. Brilliant.
Thanks for the combination strawman and ad hominem with a side order of poisoning the well, CJ- we can always count on you for offensive and verbose logical fallacies.
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.
again, primarily an LDS view
Huh
What "three-legged stool" in EO ?
Think that may require some 'splainin' ...
Using Sola Scriptura has produced multitudes of interpretations, causes splitting of the church, and false doctrines. Using Traditions with the Church adds cohesiveness to our learning of Scripture. Scriptures should never be allowed free interpretation without studying the Church history and how the early Church interpreted it, first.
For CJ:
Well, SS is wrong. One, and only one, thing is necessary for salvation and that is God.
I stand corrected, He did refer the writings about Him
Using the alternative (primarily by the RCC and LDS) has also produced a multitude of interpretations. Using "the three-legged-stool," does the RCC and LDS agree on all matters?
I realize that using the views (Tradition) of self as the Rule for the self-same creates a perfect circle of self-authentication whereby all views of self MUST be determined as in agreement with the self same and thus correct, but IMHO such has no bearing on whether such IS correct - only that self alone has determined that self-alone agrees with self-alone. We need some Rule OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all the parties involved. And the more objective, the better (written would be ideal - especially if written by God!!!!).
.
Using the alternative (primarily by the RCC and LDS) has also produced a multitude of interpretations. Using "the three-legged-stool," does the RCC and LDS agree on all matters?
Ironic. That you would write this and ignore the objective historical differences between the CC and the LDS.We need some Rule OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all the parties involved. And the more objective, the better (written would be ideal - especially if written by God!!!!).
Wow! Thanks for that.Yes, Jesus used Sola Scriptura some 50 times.
He never once referred to ANY denomination (RCC or EO or any other) as a Rule for anything. He furthermore never once used such as a norma normans.
.
aww comon. Their clergy has cooler beards then ours.I know what you mean and have personally heard many Orthodox say this very thing. However, the average Protestant does not even know that the Orthodox Church exists or that it is a separate entity from the Roman Catholic Church. You must use language that they can understand or employ the tools of apologetics first. It provides a foundation from which to work.
"Weak arguments," indeed. How can we argue against the notion that scripture is the rule? That is the meaning of the word canon. So you have come around to the notion that canon is canon. Brilliant.
Wonder how the Catholic's pope would look in a beard.aww comon. Their clergy has cooler beards then ours.
I am glad to hear that alsoI'm glad to hear that the EO also embraces Sola Scriptura.
What I was taught in the RCC (and I well know the EO and CC disagree on much) is this, "The canon in the Church is not limited to the Canon of Scripture." Thus, in the RCC, the Canon of Scripture is NOT the canon for the church. The canon for the Church in the CC is "the three-legged-stool" of:
1. The Tradition of the CC as currently defined, determined and interpreted by the CC. This is always listed first and given primary emphasis.
2. The Scripture NOT in any tome or document but "in the heart of the CC" as interpreted by the CC alone to conform with the teachings of the CC.
3. The Magisterium of the CC - its rulings, decisions, interpretations and arbitrations.
These THREE things form ONE united "stream" that must be viewed in full agreement with each other since God cannot contradict Himself, thus the Scripture in the heart of the RCC as interpreted by the RCC MUST agree with the Tradition of the RCC, etc.
I'm glad to hear the EO rather embraces the Canon of Scripture as the canon for the church. That IS Sola Scriptura.
.
I would say so did Saul/Paul.So Christ witnessed by "sola scriptura" sola
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?