EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

[Thekla]

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 "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.

 

[Mikeb85]

I dunno, just seeing the disunity in the Protestant world, and the various heresies floating around, there doesn't seem to be much point in arguing against Sola Scriptura... The problems with that doctrine are self-evident.

Besides, it's not as if the Orthodox Church takes scripture lightly. We read more of it in our services than any other Christian group, and I've always appreciated the fact that the Orthodox Church doesn't read into scripture too much - it accepts the plain meaning of scripture (within the historical context that is the Church).

 

[MariaRegina]

.


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:

CJ,

The title of your thread is a misnomer.

The person who wrote what you have quoted is not an Orthodox Christian but a Presbyterian.

In addition, as another person has already mentioned, TAW has a debate forum (St. Justin) and you could have responded in that original thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7400496/

 

[Tzaousios]

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.

Actually, I agree wholeheartedly with what you say here. The Father draws his own unto himself by the Spirit. This is done by an inner call to the heart after hearing the Gospel.

That being said, however, reason is the term that is used in all of those evangelistic passages in Acts and also in Peter's admonition in his first epistle. This is what I pointed out in post #19.

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.

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.

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.

Hello Thekla!

I hope that I did not give the impression that I thought the saints' lives were merely dusty historical records! That was not my intention at all. My reason for describing it in that way goes back to what I have been telling Yeznik.

The average Protestant does not understand this language of description. Since the saints' lives are also preserved in historical records, it is good to present them in that format first and then describe the Orthodox view of them being the ever-present cloud of witnesses.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

"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.

 

[MariaRegina]

"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.

Gotta love it.

Brilliant logic, Reader Iakovos!

 

[lionroar0]

Indeed. Bored with the Catholics, I guess.

Well, we have been ignoring him.

 

[lionroar0]

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.

I'm not sure what logical fallacy this is as there is no explicit mention of Jesus teaching Dogma in the NT. Such as Jesus using the word "dogma"( as per CJ's post) in any of His teachings. It was understood that He came to do these things in the name of the Father.

It's like, because it does not say dogma we are supposed to think that he stopped teachings, because it's not explicitly written. Specially when part of His mission was to teach.

I guess CJ is right when he states that it has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura, because it's not written. Looks like noather logical fallacy to me.

again, primarily an LDS view

I know this one. It's poisoning the well.

 

[Blackknight]

Huh

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

The three legged stool is an Anglican doctrine, not Orthodox. Reason is a big part of our faith however and 90% of our members have college degrees so it's not like we're dummies.

And another argument against sola scriptura would be what did early Christians use before the Bible was canonized? They had the Jewish scriptures but there was no New Testament and back then there were no printing presses so you had to go to the temple to listen to readings and learn from the Rabbis there. We have simply continued the same oral/patristic tradition.

Don't get me wrong, scripture is important but it really belongs in the context of the church. After all, who defined it?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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.

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!!!!).




.



.



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

For CJ:

Well, SS is wrong. One, and only one, thing is necessary for salvation and that is God.

Sola Scriptura does not teach that embracing Scripture as the norma normans in the evaluation of teachings is what saves us. Thus, it is not "wrong" on that count.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I stand corrected, He did refer the writings about Him

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.



.

 

[lionroar0]

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?

Your responding to someone who is EO not CC.

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!!!!).

Ironic. That you would write this and ignore the objective historical differences between the CC and the LDS.

Since your so big on consesus(sp?) of all parties. I have an idea How about a consesus of the definition of objective and rule

Or this this only objective and rule as CJ defines it?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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.

.

Wow! Thanks for that.

Anything mentinoned about SOLO SCRIPTURA ehehehe?

1 Corinthians 4:6 These-things yet brethren! I after-figure into myself and Apollos thru/because-of ye.
That in us ye may be learning the no above/over that which hath been Written/gegraptai <1125> (5769), *to think* that no one over the one ye may be being puffed up against the other/different.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7367166/#post51676697
1 Corin 4:6 No above what is written

 

[lionroar0]

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.

aww comon. Their clergy has cooler beards then ours.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"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.

I'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. Interesting you call it, "Brilliant."






.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

aww comon. Their clergy has cooler beards then ours.

Wonder how the Catholic's pope would look in a beard.

 

[Thekla]

So Christ witnessed by "sola scriptura" sola

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'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 am glad to hear that also

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So Christ witnessed by "sola scriptura" sola

I would say so did Saul/Paul.

Afterall, he was not a witness to the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus as far as I know of, but he quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures numerous times in his Epistles