EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

MariaRegina · Sep 10, 2009

Maybe this explanation will be more clear:

Orthodox Christians like the Jews believe in Holy Revelation.

Holy Revelation includes all the Holy Traditions revealed by God and the Holy Bible.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 10, 2009

MariaRegina said:
Maybe this explanation will be more clear:

MariaRegina said:
Orthodox Christians like the Jews believe in Holy Revelation.

Holy Revelation includes all the Holy Traditions revealed by God and the Holy Bible.

This thread has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with revelation (holy or unholy). It has to do with WHAT serves as the canon/rule/norma normans for evaluating what is taught (including in a denomination's "tradition").

.

jckstraw72 · Sep 10, 2009

the faith once delivered to the saints

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 10, 2009

MariaRegina said:
One either accepts the entire Holy Tradition of the Holy Orthodox Church or one accept Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is a novel belief that was not held by the Ancient Christians. It is a new doctrine that is anathema to the Holy Canons.

Lost me...

1. How does one 'accept' Sola Scriptura? Either one USES it or not; it's a praxis. It's done or not done.

2. It's not a doctrine at all. New or otherwise.

3. So, when Moses came down the Mountain with the first Scripture, he didn't regard the Ten Commandments as normative but rather pointed the people to the Rule of the liturgy of the Greek Orthodox Church?

4. Whereas Jesus used Scripture as normative over 50 times, when did He use the following as the canon/rule/norma normans?

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

5. Note the following quotes, all stating Sola Scriptura:

"Let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth." Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)

"In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind....In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, butthere is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

"The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)

"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast." St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

"What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin' as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,' everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin." Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

"We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture." St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)

IF it's a new and novel praxis, where did all these get the idea from? I don't think any of them had heard of Fr. Martin Luther. And where did Moses get the idea that the Scripture he received from God was to be normative? From John Calvin? And where did Jesus get the praxis from?

On the other hand, what evidence do you have that Moses or Jesus or Paul used as the norma normans Byzantine Chant or the style of your church building?

.

MariaRegina · Sep 10, 2009

jckstraw72 said:
the faith once delivered to the saints

Amen. Amen. Amen.

The Bible says that in Antioch, the followers of the way were first called Christians.

The Holy Faith was revealed to the Apostles by Christ. This unchanging faith was once delivered to the saints (as the Bible says). It is a Holy Revelation, an unchanging revelation, the revelation that gave the Saints the courage to die for the Holy Faith and the Holy Bible.

If they had not shed their blood for God and for us, their fellow Christians, then we would not have the Holy Bible today.

MariaRegina · Sep 10, 2009

Oh ye of little faith

Why do people have so much fear?

Christ gave us His Holy Church to guide us. He sent His Holy Spirit upon His Holy Church and promised us that it would prevail. Yet, people fear the Church, which is the Bride of Christ. And it is the Bride of Christ that has given us the Holy Bible.

Even if all the bishops in the world became apostate as they might do in the End Times, there will remain at least one Bishop who will be faithful.

During the Arian heresy, about 80% of the Catholic Bishops were Arian. It was a very dark age, yet the Church prevailed because the Holy Spirit is guiding our Church.

MariaRegina · Sep 10, 2009

During the time of the Soviet Empire, almost all bibles were confiscated and burned by the atheistic communists.

Priests had to say the Scriptures from memory because the books were burned or buried.

People who came into Russia would smuggle one page of the Bible in their clothes sewn into the lining. The bible was brought into Russian one page at a time.

But it was the living faith that was transmitted from grandparents to grandchildren that kept the faith alive. Most people had no bibles, but they did have Holy Tradition, including singing songs from the Bible by heart. No, there is no division between Holy Tradition and Sacred Scriptures. That is a false dichotomy created by the Reformation.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 10, 2009

Sorry, Maria, but I can't see any connection whatsoever between your last posts and the topic of this thread. Or what it has to do with anything I've written. Or asked of you. I just can't see the connection.

I realize you sincerely believe what you are taught is correct. NO ONE DOUBTS THAT. The Mormon does, too. The Mormon is just accepting the faith as delivered by God to the saints - and thus it is true. The Mormon is as sincere in accepting Christ's Church - founded and protected by Him - and the teachings of the LDS as the faith passed on by the Apostles to the (Latter Day Saints) as you are. No one is questioning sincerity here. But, let's try this, theoretically. Bob says Jesus had red hair. Jim says He had brown hair. They both now had dogmas that say such. Both is 100% sincere and convinced that God has so revealed this to the saints via His Apostles and confirmed it by the Holy Spirit via the Church He founded and promised could not err. Now, ONE of the issues in norming is WHAT will serve as the norma normans, the rule ("straight edge"), the canon ("measuring stick" "standard"), the "plumbline" for the evaluation of the question. Can you see that simply appointing the view of self as the rule for the self same is simply a perfect circle of authentication - meaningless and moot? Does it make sense to you that BOTH Bob and Jim be subject to a single Rule OUTSIDE and ABOVE them both, one neither can alter or amend? Yes, if the Mormon says that the faith of the Apostles delivered to the saints (which is the doctrines, traditions and practices of the LDS according to the LDS) IS the canon for the evaluation of the correctness of the self same, that he will thereby conclude that the view agrees with itself and thus is normed? But what has that determined? Are you convinced that THEREBY it is correct? I doubt it.... What's good for the goose is good for the gander (and vise versa); you you REJECT the validity (or even usefulness) of the Rule for the Mormon, you do for you, too. IF you say that Bob simply looking to the view of Bob (Jesus had red hair) as the Rule for the evaluation of whether Bob is correct and Jesus had red hair, the only possible function of the Rule is to determine that self agrees with self - it's moot to the issue at hand. Perfect circles do one thing: lead you home, it has nothing to do with truth.

Now, you (and our Mormon friends) MAY believe WHATEVER you want. You may be faithful to what you were taught in your denominations. Fine. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE OF THIS THREAD!!!! And you may believe that when a teacher (such as The Orthodox Church) says it's right, therefore it's right. Fine. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE OF THIS THREAD. The issue of this thread is WHAT should serve as the norma normans for the evaluation of the correctness of positions of ALL parties - the EO, you, me included.

Now, I think that all the things you posted - all aspects of your specific, singular denomination - are entirely unmentioned and never used as the canon by Jesus or any Apostle (or any before that) but we DO see Scripture used normatively from the moment Scripture first arrived on Mount Sinai, thus the Rule of Scripture is older than the Rule of EO Styles of Church Buildings. And I think that the written words of God in Scripture is a better canon to determine if the EO is correct in a view than to use that view of the EO as the Rule for such.

.

.

MariaRegina · Sep 10, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Sorry, Maria, but I can't see any connection whatsoever between your last posts and the topic of this thread. Or what it has to do with anything I've written. Or asked of you.

It is obvious that sola scriptura is not an Orthodox belief, but rather a novel doctrine created by the Reformation 1500 years after the death and resurrection of Christ.

It was never the belief of Christ, the Apostles, nor the Ancient Christians.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 10, 2009

MariaRegina said:
It is obvious that sola scriptura is not an Orthodox belief

... it's not a belief of anyone.

a novel doctrine created by the Reformation 1500 years after the death and resurrection of Christ.

So, did Luther or Calvin teach it to the following?

"Let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth." Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)

"In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind....In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, butthere is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

"The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)

"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast." St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

"What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if all that is not of faith is sin' as the Apostle says, and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,' everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin." Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

"We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture." St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)

Who taught it to Moses, nearly 3000 before Luther was born?

Who taught it to Jesus, some 1500 years before his birth?

.

LittleLambofJesus · Sep 10, 2009

So, did Luther or Calvin teach it to the following?

Greetings CJ. You had some good posts over on this thread also

http://www.christianforums.com/t7353336-45/
Was Augustine Sola Scriptura?

OP:
Originally Posted by simonthezealot

Augustine explains that his view that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16 was later replaced by the view that Christ is the rock. Notice that he refers to his former view being *replaced*, not just adding a second interpretation to it. He says that the reader can decide for himself which interpretation is more likely. He expects the reader to choose between the two, not accept both. Thus, Augustine advocated the *rejection* of the view that Peter is the rock, and he said that others could do the same, here it is...
............... But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)

katherine2001 · Sep 10, 2009

MariaRegina said:
Maybe this explanation will be more clear:

Orthodox Christians like the Jews believe in Holy Revelation.

Holy Revelation includes all the Holy Traditions revealed by God and the Holy Bible.

Exactly. We don't stick God in a box and say that He can only reveal Himself to us in the Scriptures and that we won't believe anything that is not in the Scriptures. God can reveal Himself to us however He wants to, including through Holy Tradition, the Fathers, the Saints, etc. The Scriptures were never meant to be an instruction book that includes every bit of information--that is why Paul told us to hold fast to the traditions--both oral and written.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 10, 2009

LittleLambofJesus said:
Greetings CJ. You had some good posts over on this thread also

I know, lol...

I'm just waiting to see if it is believed that Luther or Calvin taught this praxis to all those Fathers who lived CENTURIES before either (time machine, maybe?). And to Moses. And to Jesus.

THEN, we can discuss why it's best for a view of self to be the Rule/canon for the self same - when the EO does it but not when the LDS does it. I've always been curious about that from the RC perspective. Now, let's see what the answer is from the EO perspective.

Oh, so much comes down to epistemology and ecclesiology - and whether we are willing to be accountable in the same way we insist other Christians be accountable, or if we give self (RC, EO, Josiah - whatever) a "pass" cuz self can't be wrong - but then regard all OTHERS as accountable.

Sadly, as often happens in discussions at CF (especially GT!), things get diverted in a hundred ways so that everything BUT the issue at hand gets discussed.

Sola Scriptura is simple. It is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the Rule for the evaluation of teachings - of all. It is the alternative of the praxis of embracing the views of self as the Rule for the evaluations of teachings - including of self. IMHO, all the alternative does is not who agrees with self (typically, self) and who does not (typically, everyone else). It has nothing to do with correctness and thus is moot as a Rule/Canon. The Rule of Scripture (similar to the Rule of Law in civil societies) places ALL under a written Rule/Canon that none of the parties involved can alter to suit self.

IMHO, the "history" for Sola Scriptura is FAR older and sounder than that of the Rule of EO Church Buildings and the other things noted as the canon/rule/norma normans in the EO. I gave a number of EO Church Fathers proclaiming Sola Scriptura as some indication of such - but maybe it's believed they were Lutherans?

.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 10, 2009

katherine2001 said:
We don't stick God in a box and say that He can only reveal Himself to us in the Scriptures

This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with revelation.

Greg the byzantine · Sep 10, 2009

The Liturgy is living scripture. Here's a link that has scriptural reference for each line of the Divine Liturgy. :

The Bible in the Divine Liturgy

cowboysfan1970 · Sep 10, 2009

There is one big flaw with Sola Scriptura and that is that if you get a group of people and have them read a chapter or verse in the Bible and you have them then tell you what it means you might get completely different answers. There are people that have justified some very extreme and legalistic doctrines by what they believe the Bible says.

Blackknight · Sep 10, 2009

I think we're speaking two different languages here. Yes, we check everything we do against scripture. But how do you interpret it and how do you decide whose interpretation is correct? THAT is why we have ecumencial councils and why everything is compared to patristic tradition. There is simply no such thing as sola scriptura in Orthodoxy, it's a Reformation term that doesn't apply.

There are some church dogmas that going by sola scriptura could be rejected, depending on how you read things. That is another reason the idea simply doesn't exist for us.

MariaRegina · Sep 10, 2009

This thread does deal with Revelation.

Revelation is all about the Good News (the Gospel) which has been revealed by Christ our God to all the saints once and for all. So it involves Holy Tradition which includes the Holy Bible.

Sola Scriptura, then is taking a very narrow-minded view of the totality that God has revealed.

Sola Scriptura is like going to a banquet and only touching the salad and not having any meat, wine, cheese, rice, potatoes, bread, vegetables, or dessert.

LittleLambofJesus · Sep 10, 2009

MariaRegina said:
This thread does deal with Revelation.

Revelation is all about the Good News (the Gospel) which has been revealed by Christ our God to all the saints once and for all. So it involves Holy Tradition which includes the Holy Bible.

Sola Scriptura, then is taking a very narrow-minded view of the totality that God has revealed.

Sola Scriptura is like going to a banquet and only touching the salad and having no meat, wine, cheese, rice, potatoes, bread, vegetables, or dessert.

Never heard it put like that before, but that isn't the way I myself view it being Solo Scriptura.

buzuxi02 · Sep 11, 2009

Tzaousios said:
I am quite willing to listen. In fact, I respect the Eastern Orthodoxy very much.

With all due respect, I would like to see an Orthodox apologist who can pull their weight in a debate against Protestant apologists.

Although I have read some very good Orthodox theology (Meyendorff, Ware, Lossky, Romanides, Greek fathers), there does not seem to be any actual apologists with command of the sources and theology to combat Protestants.

What usually happens is a blanket statement is issued about the Church, Holy Tradition, and pillar and bulwark of the faith, and that is expected to be a good enough answer to all challenges without going into details.

What are you smoking? Protestants dont have arguments , there surface thinkers. Why do you think the center of protestantism is the red-neck bible belt of the southern united states? Most people actually leave protestantism when they realize they have been duped. It is a fact that there would be less protestant sects simply if they had a knowledge of the original greek koine, many sects centered around sola scripture have evolved from a bad translation of a few biblical verses.You can see from a search of my past posts that i do have a command of the issues and that protestants would never even attempt to debate me, the ones who have tend to have a really bad day. And i have written a short response over this thread in forum 'ancient way'

EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

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

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

have mercy on me

Forum Regular

Servant of God

Well-Known Member

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

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency