EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

lionroar0 · Sep 11, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
1. We don't live in 31 AD.

2. Let's see. How many times in just the NT is Scripture used as the norma normans? And how many times was the following used in the NT as the norma normans?
The Divine Liturgy of the EO
The Holy Services of the EO
The Holy Mysteries of the EO
The Byzantine Chant of the EO
The Temple Architecture of the EO

3. When Moses came down the Mountain with the first Scripture, what was the canon for those points of morality? The Scriptures or the Temple Architecture of the EO?
.

1 you right.

2. The NT wouldn't have been used as there was no NT.

What was used was the OT and interpreted through the gospel of Jesus and the revelation(s) that was given to the Apostles through the Holy Spirit.

Blackknight · Sep 11, 2009

Well, if one notes that his car is red, and the other perpetually says, "your car is white" then I suppose it's necessary to keep pointing out that it's actually red.

This actually brings up a very important point. Words represent ideas but what we call those ideas may differ.

For an Orthodox Christian Holy Tradition is what you would call the norma normans, scripture is a big part of that but it is not the ONLY part of it.

That said, I am done here.

LittleLambofJesus · Sep 11, 2009

lionroar0 said:
1 you right.

2. The NT wouldn't have been used as there was no NT.

What was used was the OT and interpreted through the gospel of Jesus and the revelation(s) that was given to the Apostles through the Holy Spirit.

Tis true.

Colo 1:26 The Mystery having been Hid from the ages and from the generations now yet was made manifest to the holy-ones of Him.
27 To-whom wills, the God, to make known any the riches of the glory of the Mystery, this, in the Nations which is Christ in ye the hope of glory.

Revelation 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh Messenger whenever He may be being about to be trumpeting also is finish/telesqh <5055> (5686) the Mystery of the God as He brings Well-Message to His bond-servants the prophets.

Thekla · Sep 11, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Well, if one notes that his car is red, and the other perpetually says, "your car is white" then I suppose it's necessary to keep pointing out that it's actually red.

If one says, "California is actually a part of Canada and not the USA" and such is corrected, but the person perpetually and insistently keeps posting, "California is a provence of Canada and not a State of the USA" then I suspect all that can be done is TRY to correct the misunderstanding. Don't you agree? Your post revealed a complete misunderstanding. I hope that if you won't read or regard what I post, what the official definition is and what your Church Fathers have written, then you might read what other Protestants here post. And in the process, your misunderstanding of the praxis might be corrected. It is my HOPE. Whether you embrace it or not is not for me to address. I don't even know if you are so permitted.

.

Well, if one must keep repeating oneself, then perhaps one might come to understand that the description or the method does not bear fruit. Thus, one would reconsider the explanation or the method, so that (if understanding is the goal), one might fulfill the goal of helping another to understand.

Blackknight · Sep 11, 2009

Looking back I'm not sure I even understand the point of this thread. Even if we said "hey! you're exactly right!" what would it accomplish? Of course we use scripture as a guide, but there's more to it than that.

Yeznik · Sep 11, 2009

[FONT=&quot]. We don't live in 31 AD.

2. Let's see. How many times in just the NT is Scripture used as the norma normans? And how many times was the following used in the NT as the norma normans?
The Divine Liturgy of the EO
The Holy Services of the EO
The Holy Mysteries of the EO
The Byzantine Chant of the EO
The Temple Architecture of the EO

3. When Moses came down the Mountain with the first Scripture, what was the canon for those points of morality? The Scriptures or the Temple Architecture of the EO? [/FONT]

You are correct, but, again, your statement doesnt magically validate Sola Scriptura.
You are applying a Protestant methodology that has produced failed and contrary results within its own system. Applying that system to Orthodoxy again, somehow doesnt magically validate Sola Scriptura.

Regarding the quoting of Scripture and the Church Fathers you have used, would be stylized as cherry picking. All Orthodox Churches accept the Church Fathers you quoted as Authoritive Teachers of Scripture and Church Doctrine. Protestantism doesnt teach nor accept the Early Church Fathers you quoted as Authorities of Scripture and Doctrine.
If we look at Sola Scriptura strictly from a historical perspective it can be identified as a system, teaching, praxis, doctrine or whatever people would like to label it as something developed in the 16th century. Unfortunately what seems to be happening, most times, is that the ECFs are being looked at through Sola Scriptura lenses. And what typically happens is that when the ECFs somehow agree with Sola Scriptura they are right and when an ECF disagrees with Sola Scriptura they are wrong. That would be identified as cherry picking.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 11, 2009

Thekla said:
Well, if one must keep repeating oneself, then perhaps one might come to understand that the description or the method does not bear fruit. Thus, one would reconsider the explanation or the method, so that (if understanding is the goal), one might fulfill the goal of helping another to understand.

Well, this thread is about what the original poster stated are apologetics that the EO uses AGAINST Sola Scriptura. It's an examination of those.

Now, if we were to change the topic and discuss the RESULTS of the rubric, that might be interesting. I would agree that using the view of self as the rule/canon/norma normans to see if self agrees with self (and if others do) will result in determining if self (and others) agree with self. This, IMHO, using the Tradition of self as the rule DOES accomplish. But if the goal is to attempt to arbitrate if the position is true (not just in agreement with self), then that seems rather moot to me (self usually agrees with self, I've found). We'd need SOME knowable, unalterable, MUTALLY accepted canon OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all the parties involved. In epistemology, the best norma normans is typically the LEAST subjective, the LEAST simply me. So, when someone (RCC, LDS, me, you, the Pope, Billy Graham - doesn't matter who or what) says, "the only canon I'll accept for the evaluation of my position is my position" then all we've done is embrace a perfect circle of self-authentication. In fact, it's not authentication at all - it's just confirmation of the position of self. It has nothing to do with correctness, only if a position agrees with itself.

For many months, I was involved in a scholarly but passionate blog that was primarily between two apologists: a Catholic and a Mormon. Both of them used "the three-legged-stool" as their norma normans. What was striking to us observers (about half LDS and half Catholic - I being Catholic at the time) is how each of them saw the perfect circle in the other but not in themselves - they each condemned the other for a moot canon until both realized (and eventually admitted) they were doing exactly the same thing. The wisdom of Sola Scriptura became apparent to me - although, CERTAINLY, having a perfect rule doesn't insure perfect arbitration. But at least such becomes possible. When the views of self are uses as the rule for self, there's no other possibility but that self will determine that self agrees with self - such as no bearing on correctness. To me, of the two alternatives, the Rule of Scripture makes sense. It embraces a Rule that ALL PARTIES agree is correct, inerrant, inspired; and that is written in black-and-white in words none can deny or change (none of this "as written in MY heart in invisible words only I alone can see stuff that the RCC and LDS so stress), and to which ALL are subject. We ALL bow to the same thing, rather than each to himself/herself/itself declaring self (typically called "tradition") as the canon for the evalutation of the views of self. Again, all such does is indicate who agrees with ME - and we already know the result (the ONLY POSSIBLE result) - I do and no one else does (completely).

But, again, this discussion isn't about the arbitration nor the results (as much as I'd like to talk about how the RCC and LDS disagree using the same methodology). It's simply about the apologetics that the EO uses against Sola Scriptura (as defined by the original poster). Like him, I find them entirely moot because they do not address Sola Scriptura but some concept unknown to me and certainly not Sola Scriptura.

.

LittleLambofJesus · Sep 11, 2009

Yeznik said:
You are correct, but, again, your statement doesnt magically validate Sola Scriptura.

You are applying a Protestant methodology that has produced failed and contrary results within its own system. Applying that system to Orthodoxy again, somehow doesnt magically validate Sola Scriptura.

Regarding the quoting of Scripture and the Church Fathers you have used, would be stylized as cherry picking. All Orthodox Churches accept the Church Fathers you quoted as Authoritive Teachers of Scripture and Church Doctrine. Protestantism doesnt teach nor accept the Early Church Fathers you quoted as Authorities of Scripture and Doctrine.
If we look at Sola Scriptura strictly from a historical perspective it can be identified as a system, teaching, praxis, doctrine or whatever people would like to label it as something developed in the 16th century. Unfortunately what seems to be happening, most times, is that the ECFs are being looked at through Sola Scriptura lenses. And what typically happens is that when the ECFs somehow agree with Sola Scriptura they are right and when an ECF disagrees with Sola Scriptura they are wrong. That would be identified as cherry picking.

Greetings.
For awhile I have been trying to figure out the meaning of your siggy and, well, I concede I haven't been able to. :sorry:

Լո'յս ճշմարիտ Քրիստոս, արժանաւորեա' զհոգի իմ` ուրախութեամբ տեսանել զլոյս փառաց քոց ի կոչման աւուրն եւ հանգչել յուսով բարեաց յօթեվանս արդարոց,մինչեւ յօր մեծի գալստեան քո, ողորմեա' քո արարածոց եւ ինձ` բազմամեղիս:

Yeznik · Sep 11, 2009

LittleLambofJesus said:
Greetings.
For awhile I have been trying to figure out the meaning of your siggy and, well, I concede I haven't been able to.

Լո'յս ճշմարիտ Քրիստոս, արժանաւորեա' զհոգի իմ` ուրախութեամբ տեսանել զլոյս փառաց քոց ի կոչման աւուրն եւ հանգչել յուսով բարեաց յօթեվանս արդարոց,մինչեւ յօր մեծի գալստեան քո, ողորմեա' քո արարածոց եւ ինձ` բազմամեղիս:

The signature is a prayer in Ancient Armenian. It is written by a 12th century Armenian Saint named Saint Nerses the Gracefilled. Here is the English Translation:

O Christ, True Light, make my soul worthy of beholding joyfully the light of Thy Glory and to rest hopefully in the abode of the righteous, until the day of Thy glorious coming. Have mercy upon Thy creatures and upon me, a manifold sinner.

If you would like to download it. It can be found here in 24 different languages.

Resources

With Faith I Confess - by Saint Nerses Shnorhali

jckstraw72 · Sep 11, 2009

Now, if we were to change the topic and discuss the RESULTS of the rubric, that might be interesting. I would agree that using the view of self as the rule/canon/norma normans to see if self agrees with self (and if others do) will result in determining if self (and others) agree with self.

feel free to quote any Orthodox source that actually says this nonsense.

you use this crap against every Church you don't like, and its just that -- crap. you made it up and quite obviously think yourself quite clever for it, bc you've been peddling the same dribble on here for years now. perhaps someday you'll actually attempt to learn the actual stance of other Churches.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 11, 2009

Yeznik said:
All Orthodox Churches accept the Church Fathers you quoted as Authoritive Teachers of Scripture and Church Doctrine.

Good. I honor and respect them and hold them in highest esteem, as well. Although that was not my point. I quoted them to help define the praxis. And also in response to one who insisted that using the Scriptures as the canon was "invented" by the 16th Century Reformers - which, obviously, leaves us wondering how these Church Fathers learned of it (time machine, perhaps?). A point was made that no one saw Scripture thusly before Luther - which leaves us wondering about the 50 times that Jesus quoted Scripture as normative (no one would argue that Jesus was Lutheran or that Jesus learned this from Luther).

Protestantism doesnt teach nor accept the Early Church Fathers you quoted as Authorities of Scripture and Doctrine.

I'm at a disadvantage here since while I understand the RCC and LDS concepts of Tradition, I don't the EO. The RCC and LDS view is not the same as the typically Protestant one.

In the sense meant here, Tradition is viewed by Protestants as the historic, time-honored, consensus of God's people (the church) - especially in the interpretation and application of Scripture (thus, under such). We don't see it as "Second Testimony" (as Mormons think of it) or as some mysterious corpus of "stuff" Jesus and the Apostles supposedly taught but there is no indication of such - yet a denomination eventually (perhaps centuries later) came to see it as such. Thus, we don't see it as divine revelation, HOWEVER, often, we DO see Tradition as a result of Divine Providence - of God leading His people (God's leading is infallible, our following is not). There have been times when God rose up especially wise AND HELPFUL men, whom we call Church Fathers. These typically would include all the ones you and the RCC count (not those whom the LDS so regards, however) - but may not be limited to such. Lutherans may well regard Luther (and perhaps even Calvin) as a Church Father. There's no definitive "list" of such men - but history notes them and we thank God for them. Luther not infrequently quoted from the ECF more than he did from Scripture - not as divine penmen of God writing Scripture but as wise and helpful men lead by God. We also look to the true ecumenical councils as such (often the first 7 so called councils) and lement that the pride and institutionalism that overtook Christianity had made such impossible since the late 8th century (If my memory is recalling the dates correctly), but again, we don't see the Councils as Scripture or as penmen or prophets speaking the Word of God, and we don't see them in the way that Mormons see their Apostles and Prophets - and the "Second Testimony" they produced. There is a balance here: this is wise, ecumenical, BIBLICAL stuff - in answer to prayer and faith. But it's OUR stuff - our "working out" issues of faith and life, and thus UNDER God's very word and authority. For us, it's NEVER been an issue of "Which - Scripture OR Tradition?" It's always been a question of "Which ORDER - Scripture then Tradition or Tradition then Scripture?" One, in honesty, cannot say they are the same unless one simply states - verbatim - what Scripture does.

For Protestants, Tradition plays it's role PRIMARILY in two areas: Hermeneutics and praxis. For example, as WE (not just ME, not just MY denomination - the church is US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) look at the verse, "This is my body" we need to look FIRST of all and PRIMARILY at the words God inspired - for this is what GOD says. But, to quote President Clinton, it all depends on what the meaning of is is (LOL). HERE we are involved in hermenetuics OF THE TEXT, OF THE WORDS (not invisible stuff in MY heart alone that only I alone know about - CCC #113 for example). There are many tools (grammar, history, etc.) but in the box of necessary stuff, is Tradition. The "job" of HERMENEUTICS was never given to ME - it was given to the CHURCH, to US (all believers - past and present). Thus, what have WE said about this? I became a passionate embracer of Real Presence because the Tradition was obviously biblical AND clear (although I acknowledge other possibilities). Now, when one says, "it's DOGMA - an issue of HIGHEST CERTAINTY - that the word "is" here means an alchemic transubstantiation resulting is Aristotelian accidents" two things are immediately clear: One, word "is" in NO WAY indicates such. Two, there is no Tradition for such outside of one denomination (albeit a BIG one, lol). Again, I don't know if Tradition in the EO is more in line with the RCC/LDS view or the Protestant view - or altogether different.

Now, Protestants also speak of PERSONAL or INDIVIDUAL Tradition (Lutherans don't use that word here, we speak of "Confession"). We embrace the three Ecumenical Creeds as Tradition, and we speak of the rest of the Book of Concord as OUR Confession - what defines US as LUTHERANS. It's OUR "tradition" in that it's our consensus, but we don't confuse that with the greater sense (and thus use the word "Confession" rather than Tradition to speak of this).

If we look at Sola Scriptura strictly from a historical perspective it can be identified as a system, teaching, praxis, doctrine or whatever people would like to label it as something developed in the 16th century.

Perhaps it became known BY THAT TITLE in the 16th century. But Jesus used it. Moses used it. Several of the EO Fathers spoke of it. Embracing Scripture as the canon was not invented in the 16th century, as I'm sure we'll all agree. And that IS what Sola Scriptura is.

What IS new (and not documented in Scripture or the earliest Fathers) is using the Temple Design of EO Churches as the rule/canon/norma normans. Or the Tradition of the RCC or LDS. Or the liturgy of any single denomination (no matter how beautiful, spiritual, pious and blessed). When Moses came down the mountain with the First Scripture, THAT was the norm/rule/canon for those moralities, not the Pope in Rome or the wonderful liturgy of the EO - so, it seems to ME, the Rule of Scripture pre-dates those things that I was told here are the Rule for the EO. MUCH older.

.

Thekla · Sep 11, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Well, this thread is about what the original poster stated are apologetics that the EO uses AGAINST Sola Scriptura. It's an examination of those.

Now, if we were to change the topic and discuss the RESULTS of the rubric, that might be interesting. I would agree that using the view of self as the rule/canon/norma normans to see if self agrees with self (and if others do) will result in determining if self (and others) agree with self. This, IMHO, using the Tradition of self as the rule DOES accomplish. But if the goal is to attempt to arbitrate if the position is true (not just in agreement with self), then that seems rather moot to me (self usually agrees with self, I've found). We'd need SOME knowable, unalterable, MUTALLY accepted canon OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND all the parties involved. In epistemology, the best norma normans is typically the LEAST subjective, the LEAST simply me. So, when someone (RCC, LDS, me, you, the Pope, Billy Graham - doesn't matter who or what) says, "the only canon I'll accept for the evaluation of my position is my position" then all we've done is embrace a perfect circle of self-authentication. In fact, it's not authentication at all - it's just confirmation of the position of self. It has nothing to do with correctness, only if a position agrees with itself.

For many months, I was involved in a scholarly but passionate blog that was primarily between two apologists: a Catholic and a Mormon. Both of them used "the three-legged-stool" as their norma normans. What was striking to us observers (about half LDS and half Catholic - I being Catholic at the time) is how each of them saw the perfect circle in the other but not in themselves - they each condemned the other for a moot canon until both realized (and eventually admitted) they were doing exactly the same thing. The wisdom of Sola Scriptura became apparent to me - although, CERTAINLY, having a perfect rule doesn't insure perfect arbitration. But at least such becomes possible. When the views of self are uses as the rule for self, there's no other possibility but that self will determine that self agrees with self - such as no bearing on correctness. To me, of the two alternatives, the Rule of Scripture makes sense. It embraces a Rule that ALL PARTIES agree is correct, inerrant, inspired; and that is written in black-and-white in words none can deny or change (none of this "as written in MY heart in invisible words only I alone can see stuff that the RCC and LDS so stress), and to which ALL are subject. We ALL bow to the same thing, rather than each to himself/herself/itself declaring self (typically called "tradition") as the canon for the evalutation of the views of self. Again, all such does is indicate who agrees with ME - and we already know the result (the ONLY POSSIBLE result) - I do and no one else does (completely).

But, again, this discussion isn't about the arbitration nor the results (as much as I'd like to talk about how the RCC and LDS disagree using the same methodology). It's simply about the apologetics that the EO uses against Sola Scriptura (as defined by the original poster). Like him, I find them entirely moot because they do not address Sola Scriptura but some concept unknown to me and certainly not Sola Scriptura.

.

I'm sorry, it seems I did not explain well.

The stated concern was that where a concept was not understood, there was no further effort at description. Instead, previous posts (which had not succeeded at clarifying the content) were repeated. Or, portions of the posts were repeated , with some additional content (but in the same vein).

The examples provided did not act to reveal a concept but repeated the same method of description (the one that had apparently failed). If the goal is to assist another person in understanding, and the initial description has failed, a repetition of the same statement will likely fail as well.

Not unlike people repeating the same statement at a higher volume and more slowly when trying to communicate with someone who does not know the language.

Yeznik · Sep 11, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Good. I honor and respect them and hold them in highest esteem, as well. Although that was not my point. I quoted them to help define the praxis. And also in response to one who insisted that using the Scriptures as the canon was "invented" by the 16th Century Reformers - which, obviously, leaves us wondering how these Church Fathers learned of it (time machine, perhaps?). A point was made that no one saw Scripture thusly before Luther - which leaves us wondering about the 50 times that Jesus quoted Scripture as normative (no one would argue that Jesus was Lutheran or that Jesus learned this from Luther).

I'm at a disadvantage here since while I understand the RCC and LDS concepts of Tradition, I don't the EO. The RCC and LDS view is not the same as the typically Protestant one.

In the sense meant here, Tradition is viewed by Protestants as the historic, time-honored, consensus of God's people (the church) - especially in the interpretation and application of Scripture (thus, under such). We don't see it as "Second Testimony" (as Mormons think of it) or as some mysterious corpus of "stuff" Jesus and the Apostles supposedly taught but there is no indication of such - yet a denomination eventually (perhaps centuries later) came to see it as such. Thus, we don't see it as divine revelation, HOWEVER, often, we DO see Tradition as a result of Divine Providence - of God leading His people (God's leading is infallible, our following is not). There have been times when God rose up especially wise AND HELPFUL men, whom we call Church Fathers. These typically would include all the ones you and the RCC count (not those whom the LDS so regards, however) - but may not be limited to such. Lutherans may well regard Luther (and perhaps even Calvin) as a Church Father. There's no definitive "list" of such men - but history notes them and we thank God for them. Luther not infrequently quoted from the ECF more than he did from Scripture - not as divine penmen of God writing Scripture but as wise and helpful men lead by God. We also look to the true ecumenical councils as such (often the first 7 so called councils) and lement that the pride and institutionalism that overtook Christianity had made such impossible since the late 8th century (If my memory is recalling the dates correctly), but again, we don't see the Councils as Scripture or as penmen or prophets speaking the Word of God, and we don't see them in the way that Mormons see their Apostles and Prophets - and the "Second Testimony" they produced. There is a balance here: this is wise, ecumenical, BIBLICAL stuff - in answer to prayer and faith. But it's OUR stuff - our "working out" issues of faith and life, and thus UNDER God's very word and authority. For us, it's NEVER been an issue of "Which - Scripture OR Tradition?" It's always been a question of "Which ORDER - Scripture then Tradition or Tradition then Scripture?" One, in honesty, cannot say they are the same unless one simply states - verbatim - what Scripture does.

For Protestants, Tradition plays it's role PRIMARILY in two areas: Hermeneutics and praxis. For example, as WE (not just ME, not just MY denomination - the church is US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) look at the verse, "This is my body" we need to look FIRST of all and PRIMARILY at the words God inspired - for this is what GOD says. But, to quote President Clinton, it all depends on what the meaning of is is (LOL). HERE we are involved in hermenetuics OF THE TEXT, OF THE WORDS (not invisible stuff in MY heart alone that only I alone know about - CCC #113 for example). There are many tools (grammar, history, etc.) but in the box of necessary stuff, is Tradition. The "job" of HERMENEUTICS was never given to ME - it was given to the CHURCH, to US (all believers - past and present). Thus, what have WE said about this? I became a passionate embracer of Real Presence because the Tradition was obviously biblical AND clear (although I acknowledge other possibilities). Now, when one says, "it's DOGMA - an issue of HIGHEST CERTAINTY - that the word "is" here means an alchemic transubstantiation resulting is Aristotelian accidents" two things are immediately clear: One, word "is" in NO WAY indicates such. Two, there is no Tradition for such outside of one denomination (albeit a BIG one, lol). Again, I don't know if Tradition in the EO is more in line with the RCC/LDS view or the Protestant view - or altogether different.

Now, Protestants also speak of PERSONAL or INDIVIDUAL Tradition (Lutherans don't use that word here, we speak of "Confession"). We embrace the three Ecumenical Creeds as Tradition, and we speak of the rest of the Book of Concord as OUR Confession - what defines US as LUTHERANS. It's OUR "tradition" in that it's our consensus, but we don't confuse that with the greater sense (and thus use the word "Confession" rather than Tradition to speak of this).

Perhaps it became known BY THAT TITLE in the 16th century. But Jesus used it. Moses used it. Several of the EO Fathers spoke of it. Embracing Scripture as the canon was not invented in the 16th century, as I'm sure we'll all agree. And that IS what Sola Scriptura is.

What IS new (and not documented in Scripture or the earliest Fathers) is using the Temple Design of EO Churches as the rule/canon/norma normans. Or the Tradition of the RCC or LDS. Or the liturgy of any single denomination (no matter how beautiful, spiritual, pious and blessed). When Moses came down the mountain with the First Scripture, THAT was the norm/rule/canon for those moralities, not the Pope in Rome or the wonderful liturgy of the EO - so, it seems to ME, the Rule of Scripture pre-dates those things that I was told here are the Rule for the EO. MUCH older.

.

Here is one point; I will try to get to the others at a later time.

Scripture is the secondary source of God; the primary source is His revelation not ink on paper, not what Moses brought down from the mountain or words on a page. Again lets look to the point of perspective, for the Orthodox state a Jesus based church and the Protestantism states a bible based church. To further explain an Orthodox position, here is an extreme example. The bible would mean absolutely nothing, fiction, wishful thinking if there wasnt the empty tomb of Christ and that Christs body has Resurrected. Plain and simple, in Jerusalem is located the empty tomb of Christ that is the basis and foundation of the Orthodox faith. Again, if there was no Resurrection, then what is written in the bible would be seen as only an amazing epic novel. The only reason why the bible makes sense to Christians is the Resurrection, nothing more. And for a Christian to believe in the bible, they must accept the empty tomb and Resurrection as the primary source and foundation of Christianity not Scripture. And it is a credit to all the Ancient Churches who have held the factual and historical evidence of that empty tomb.

PassthePeace1 · Sep 11, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
For many months, I was involved in a scholarly but passionate blog that was primarily between two apologists: a Catholic and a Mormon. Both of them used "the three-legged-stool" as their norma normans. What was striking to us observers (about half LDS and half Catholic - I being Catholic at the time) is how each of them saw the perfect circle in the other but not in themselves - they each condemned the other for a moot canon until both realized (and eventually admitted) they were doing exactly the same thing. The wisdom of Sola Scriptura became apparent to me - although, CERTAINLY, having a perfect rule doesn't insure perfect arbitration. .

I'm sorry, refresh my memory....was you ever recieved into the Church. I do remember you talking of your priest, but I thought you were just in the RCIA program and didn't carry thru with coming into the Church. BTW, my question is not a challenge, I simply don't remember all the details.

Mikeb85 · Sep 11, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
1. We don't live in 31 AD.

2. Let's see. How many times in just the NT is Scripture used as the norma normans? And how many times was the following used in the NT as the norma normans?
The Divine Liturgy of the EO
The Holy Services of the EO
The Holy Mysteries of the EO
The Byzantine Chant of the EO
The Temple Architecture of the EO

3. When Moses came down the Mountain with the first Scripture, what was the canon for those points of morality? The Scriptures or the Temple Architecture of the EO?

.

I really hope this post is a joke, because your reasoning is garbage. You obviously haven't got the slightest clue what Orthodox believe about the scriptures.

We believe the scriptures to be just as important as you do. We have way more scripture readings in our divine services than any Lutheran Church (yes, I've been to Lutheran services before). We believe the scriptures to be just as inspired by God as your Church. The only difference is that we ALSO have a living tradition. It's not that scripture is any less to us, but that we simply have more to our faith.

Dark_Lite · Sep 11, 2009

Sola Scriptura is a doctrine. It's an affirmed belief of most Protestant denominations, and their belief structure arises from it.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy do not practice Sola Scriptura. They have Sacred Tradition as well, and it is on par with Scripture. Therefore, "Sola" (sole, one) doesn't really work...

Yeznik · Sep 11, 2009

[FONT=&quot]

Good. I honor and respect them and hold them in highest esteem, as well. Although that was not my point. I quoted them to help define the praxis. And also in response to one who insisted that using the Scriptures as the canon was "invented" by the 16th Century Reformers - which, obviously, leaves us wondering how these Church Fathers learned of it (time machine, perhaps?). A point was made that no one saw Scripture thusly before Luther - which leaves us wondering about the 50 times that Jesus quoted Scripture as normative (no one would argue that Jesus was Lutheran or that Jesus learned this from Luther).

[/FONT]

I am glad that you respect and have the highest esteem for the ECF, but you dont hold them as the Authorities of Scripture and Doctrine. You quoted them to help and support your praxis. But then again if you dont consider them Authorities of Scripture and Doctrine why bother quoting them; it defeats the purpose and the praxis.

Regarding the canon that was invented by the 16th century, I am assuming you are talking about the bible. There has been different versions of the bibles I have seen, and from my understanding, the Protestant bible has 66 which is several books less form the Orthodox bible.

The point was that Sola Scriptura provides a new perspective of Scripture and taking quotes from the ECFs and trying to make it conform to the Sola Scriptura methodology makes illegitimate use of the ECFs because the Sola Scriptura methodology would have to accept something, other than itself, as the Authoritive teacher of Scripture and Doctrine.

And about Jesus quoting Scripture, God never wrote a book about Himself for Himself to quote Himself in order to prove Himself to Himself. This idea is just silly.

There is an old Armenian saying if you are going to do something according to a book it is better not to do it, but if you are going to do something that you believe in it will make a world of difference (ok I admit sounds it sound better in Armenian).

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 11, 2009

Mikeb85 said:
I really hope this post is a joke, because your reasoning is garbage. You obviously haven't got the slightest clue what Orthodox believe about the scriptures.

Didn't say I did. What I've been doing is responding to the apologetics of the EO used against the praxis of Sola Scriptura, according to the original poster. This thread isn't about the doctrine of Scripture, it's about the rule/canon/norma normans embraced for the evaluation of teachings - including our own. Apples and oranges, as you know.

We believe the scriptures to be just as important as you do.

GREAT. I never doubted it for a second. It's just that that has nothing to do with this thread, this isn't about our doctrine of Scripture.

We have way more scripture readings in our divine services than any Lutheran Church (yes, I've been to Lutheran services before).

Actually, besides the 4 appointed readings in the service, nearly everything in the Liturgy is from Scripture - often verbatim. But all taht has nothing to do with our embraced rule/norma normans or with Sola Scriptura or with the issue under discussion here.

The only difference is that we ALSO have a living tradition. It's not that scripture is any less to us, but that we simply have more to our faith.

Not a difference at all (we have Tradition, too - much of it the same as yours). But that's not the question before us or the topic we're discussing. The question would be what serves as the canon/rule/norma normans as positions (including our own and those of our own churches) are evaluated.

Some embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scripture). Some that their own position is the best Rule for evaluating their own position. We're just discussing the first praxis, Sola Scriptura, and the suppose apologetics that the EO uses to denouce that praxis.

.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 11, 2009

Yeznik said:
The point was that Sola Scriptura provides a new perspective of Scripture

No. Actually, the Doctrine of Scripture is pretty much the same in the RCC and Lutheranism - we both embrace it as God's inerrant written word. No new perspective on Scripture at all.

And no, Luther was not the first to regard Scripture as normative. Moses did it. Jesus did it. Paul and Peter did it. James did it. Several of your own Fathers spoke of it as such. If it's something "new" to the 16th century, how did those who lived centuries before Luther come to know about it? And practice it?

Now, what seems NEW to me (as if such is relevant to our discussion) is using the church designs common in the EO as the rule/canon - as a previous poster in this thread indicated is the case in the EO. Jesus pointed to Scripture 50 times, but I don't recall Him so much as even mentioning the design of Greek Orthodox Churches (beautiful as they may be) or pointing to the wonderful Greek liturgy as His rule/canon for the evaluation of teachings. I just don't recall that. So IF (?) old is better than new, well Sola Scripture is at least 1400 years older than what was related to me earlier. But then, that's not really relevant or the point of our discussion.

the Sola Scriptura methodology would have to accept something, other than itself, as the Authoritive teacher of Scripture and Doctrine.

Those that embrace Sola Scriptura DO (kinda the point). They ALL embrace a rule ABOVE and OUTSIDE all of them - God's Scripture. Now, if say The Rock Church said, "Our canon/rule/norma normans for the evaluation of teachings - including our own - is the teachings of the Rock Church which we call Tradition" then self would be looking only to itself. Read the Catholic Catechism #82, 85, 87, 95, 113 and "The Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie for examples of that.

Again, as I've posted, I don't know what the EO practice is here - only what EO posters have said here. But that isn't the issue here, the EO's apologetics against Sola Scriptura is.

And about Jesus quoting Scripture, God never wrote a book about Himself

1. Who said He did?

2. Do you believe the Scriptures are in no sense about Christ?

3. Why is it not sufficient for you that the Holy Spirit wrote a book, why must JESUS have written it during His earthly ministry for it to be a sound canon? Lost me, brother....

4. Jesus used Scripture normatively some 50 times. My question was, how often did He so use (or even MENTION) all the various things I was told are the norma normans in the EO?

.

Thekla · Sep 11, 2009

When you say the God-man Christ used scripture 50 times as a "norm", what do you mean ?

EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

Coffee drinker

Servant of God

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

Thekla

Guest

Servant of God

Yeznik

Guest

Well-Known Member

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

Yeznik

Guest

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Yeznik

Guest

CARO CARDO SALUTIS

Mikeb85

Guest

Chewbacha

Yeznik

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Similar threads