EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

[nestoj]

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.

We don't have apologists in a way it's generally understood. We never felt the need for something like that. The greatest theologians, for us, are those who are the prominent practitioners of faith. That's why thousands of us give our last dime to visit and would swarm Mount Athos, but we would hardly bother taking a book to Lossky for author's signature. Priorities or something, I really can't explain.

God helps

 

[Blackknight]

IMO it's up to the Protestant to prove their views. The Orthodox Church has had the same teachings for over 2000 years and there is a large wealth of material available for anybody that wants to study it.

I have a few books on Orthodox apologetics on my site at http://orthodoxgeek.com/books/#2 as well.

 

[E.C.]

This will be my only post in this thread. After this is posted I am unsubscribing because there is one crucial bit of incorrectness in the original post that must be pointed out:

.


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:

False. There is St. Justin Martyr's Corner, which is a subforum where debate is allowed and welcomed


And now, back to your regularly scheduled program.

 

[Standing Up]

=snip=Interesting thing is, he never mentions "what is written about Me" bu He does mention "my Church". Should I remind you that Orthodox never claimed "we decide who is saved"?
=snip=

Well, not exactly.

Lk. 24:44 Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

Lk. 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

OT is written for us for a witness. What of the NT?

Jn. 16:4 "But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you of them.

Lk. 24:46 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,

Spoken to those who would write them down as a witness.

But hey, I am sola scriptura.

 

[Standing Up]

IMO it's up to the Protestant to prove their views. The Orthodox Church has had the same teachings for over 2000 years -snip-.

Well, not exactly. More like since 200-341 or so.

 

[nestoj]

Well, not exactly.

Lk. 24:44 Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

Lk. 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

OT is written for us for a witness. What of the NT?

Jn. 16:4 "But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you of them.

Lk. 24:46 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,

Spoken to those who would write them down as a witness.

But hey, I am sola scriptura.

I stand corrected, He did refer the writings about Him in OT. As for the NT - you've just quoted Him saying "remember", which is what the Orthodox do - preserve the collective memory of Christianity. I'd say the Lk. 24:46 is alse speaking about the OT.

 

[Blackknight]

Well, not exactly. More like since 200-341 or so.

While the Creed wasn't formulated for a few hundred years early Christian beliefs were no different from what we teach today. You only need to read the writings of the early church Fathers to see that.

A few of the councils were drawn together to combat heresies but the beliefs of the church have not changed.

 

[nestoj]

Well, not exactly. More like since 200-341 or so.

Really? Who and what were the Christians in our cities before 200-341?

 

[Yeznik]

While the Creed wasn't formulated for a few hundred years early Christian beliefs were no different from what we teach today. You only need to read the writings of the early church Fathers to see that.

A few of the councils were drawn together to combat heresies but the beliefs of the church have not changed.

Blacknight,

This is a point well made. If Sola Scriptura was adequate, there would have been no need for councils or creeds.

 

[Standing Up]

I stand corrected, He did refer the writings about Him in OT. As for the NT - you've just quoted Him saying "remember", which is what the Orthodox do - preserve the collective memory of Christianity. I'd say the Lk. 24:46 is alse speaking about the OT.

Well, that brings up the oral versus written witness. Some groups accept oral Tradition (though what one of those is isn't exactly clear) and some reject Tradition.

I doubt Christ Jesus would establish the OT written witness and then neglect to establish a NT written witness. Oh wait, He did.

As for me, I'd go with sola scriptura and then look back through Tradition to see alignment or divergence. It's a nice thought to believe one's Church aligns backward for 2,000 years, but the reality is far different.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Blacknight,

This is a point well made. If Sola Scriptura was adequate, there would have been no need for councils or creeds.

That didn't stop the great Schism between the CC and Orthodox from happening

http://www.christianforums.com/t6790703/
Great Schism and effect on Christianity and Theology

 

[Standing Up]

Yep. It seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit ...

But the schism's foundations happened long earlier than 1054.

 

[nestoj]

Well, that brings up the oral versus written witness. Some groups accept oral Tradition (though what one of those is isn't exactly clear) and some reject Tradition.

I doubt Christ Jesus would establish the OT written witness and then neglect to establish a NT written witness. Oh wait, He did.

As for me, I'd go with sola scriptura and then look back through Tradition to see alignment or divergence. It's a nice thought to believe one's Church aligns backward for 2,000 years, but the reality is far different.

It makes little difference what we say or doubt. What did He say in that quote "write" or "remember"?

 

[Yeznik]

That didn't stop the great Schism between the CC and Orthodox from happening

http://www.christianforums.com/t6790703/
Great Schism and effect on Christianity and Theology

You are right. But by identifying a schism doesn't magically validate Sola Scriptura.

 

[Tzaousios]

Before it gets lost in the shuffle, I would appreciate it if some Orthodox members could comment on my post #19. Thanks!

We don't have apologists in a way it's generally understood. We never felt the need for something like that. The greatest theologians, for us, are those who are the prominent practitioners of faith.

Indeed, the witness of the saints living and in glory.

However, I would very much like to see the Orthodox come out from behind the walls of Constantinople and contend with this wealth of information.

In the modern context, as in discussing on here or in person with other Christians or non-Christians, it would be an excellent opportunity to reveal specific examples of the doings of the saints and of the writings of the fathers. Kind of like what Yeznik did on page 1!

That's why thousands of us give our last dime to visit and would swarm Mount Athos, but we would hardly bother taking a book to Lossky for author's signature. Priorities or something, I really can't explain.

I understand that priority! Visiting Mount Athos would be much more worthwhile in a number of ways than getting Lossky's autograph.

I have a good Orthodox friend whose father made a pilgrimage to Athos. He told us some wonderful stories about the experience.

As for me, I have read about it and seen pictures. Part of the research I do in the history of Byzantium for the later period draws on the monastic charters of Athos in the collection of the Archives de l'Athos.

 

[Yeznik]

Before it gets lost in the shuffle, I would appreciate it if some Orthodox members could comment on my post #19. Thanks!



Indeed, the witness of the saints living and in glory.

However, I would very much like to see the Orthodox come out from behind the walls of Constantinople and contend with this wealth of information.

In the modern context, as in discussing on here or in person with other Christians or non-Christians, it would be an excellent opportunity to reveal specific examples of the doings of the saints and of the writings of the fathers. Kind of like what Yeznik did on page 1!



I understand that priority! Visiting Mount Athos would be much more worthwhile in a number of ways than getting Lossky's autograph.

I have a good Orthodox friend whose father made a pilgrimage to Athos. He told us some wonderful stories about the experience.

As for me, I have read about it and seen pictures. Part of the research I do in the history of Byzantium for the later period draws on the monastic charters of Athos in the collection of the Archives de l'Athos.

I will try to when I get home. I would be interested in reading some of the research you have done. I enjoy reading history particularly about Byzantium since the Armenians were the largest minority there.

 

[sunlover1]

Allowed by who? Allowed by any believer that is seeking the truth. (obvious)

I'm sorry, it didnt seem obvious in the way you worded it.
But naturally any bible scholar will desire to search out every resource available to
him...
Once I discovered that treasure of the kingdom of God... I disregarded everything else
to chase after more knowledge of God.

Scriptures should never be allowed free interpretation without studying the Church history and how the early Church interpreted it, first.

No, using Traditions within Orthodoxy provides cohesiveness, and without being a member of an Orthodox Church, you will never understand that.

Certainly you feel this is fact.

I'm speaking to deaf people here, and now sorry that I intruded this deep pit here. All you want to do is argue instead of listening or learning.

I dont know how ;you'd come to such a conclusion by my post.
i raised some logical solid points.

We perhaps have different opinions,... but that's a given in any subject,
and doesnt mean either is deaf or uninterested in learning/changing.

Jesus taught many things to his Apostles, and his Apostles continued those teachings. Somehow denominational churches forget all of it, and want to reinterpret the Bible until it fits their needs, instead of conforming to the way God wants us to be.

Sorry to have to disagree but imo, most Christians do desire to conform to the
way that God wants us to be...we fail miserably sometimes, but do have the desire.

I agree Blackknight... they have to become fed up with the inconsistencies of Protestant teachings before they will listen. I pray that day comes sooner rather than later!

Inconsistencies will abound and did even among the Apostles times, what I get
fed up with is division...
He said that it was His desire that we become one.
That oneness was the same oneness as a husband and wife.
Husbands and wives will have different ideas about everything
to some extent, but they are one in Spirit.

sunlover

 

[Standing Up]

It makes little difference what we say or doubt. What did He say in that quote "write" or "remember"?

I doubt the EO have abandoned scripture totally for tradition.

There's numerous other quotes to solidify the OT and NT as witnesses. For example, the introduction to Luke goes like this:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Those are powerful, potentially self-incriminating words Luke uses. We should hope to have 'perfect understanding'. How? It is written that we might know the certainty of those things.

It's not oral Tradition, but of those things written from which they were instructed that provides certainty for us.

 

[Thekla]

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.

Huh

What "three-legged stool" in EO ?
Think that may require some 'splainin' ...

 

[Yeznik]

Before it gets lost in the shuffle, I would appreciate it if some Orthodox members could comment on my post #19. Thanks!



Indeed, the witness of the saints living and in glory.

However, I would very much like to see the Orthodox come out from behind the walls of Constantinople and contend with this wealth of information.

In the modern context, as in discussing on here or in person with other Christians or non-Christians, it would be an excellent opportunity to reveal specific examples of the doings of the saints and of the writings of the fathers. Kind of like what Yeznik did on page 1!



I understand that priority! Visiting Mount Athos would be much more worthwhile in a number of ways than getting Lossky's autograph.

I have a good Orthodox friend whose father made a pilgrimage to Athos. He told us some wonderful stories about the experience.

As for me, I have read about it and seen pictures. Part of the research I do in the history of Byzantium for the later period draws on the monastic charters of Athos in the collection of the Archives de l'Athos.

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 you’re reasoning with is not prepared to hear the word of God. And I think that has a lot to do with perspective. 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. Now I am not insinuating that bible based churches don’t believe in the Resurrection, but it is the foundation of the church which has a reason and perspective that is different. I would go as far as to say the inner spiritual perspective is different for an Orthodox compared to a Protestant. And the inner reason, which Paul and Peter mention are the expression of faith through words, which they used to convert others, that are from God and not from man.