EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

[Thekla]

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

I thought Paul first 'experienced' Christ on the road to Damascus ... before he used scripture in an understanding apparently unlike his understanding of scripture before his blinding ...

 

[boswd]

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I thought Paul first 'experienced' Christ on the road to Damascus ... before he used scripture in an understanding apparently unlike his understanding of scripture before his blinding ...

What an event that was!!!

One thing I was asked numerous times by the Jews in my debate with them is where in the OT/OC Scriptures was Saul/Paul prophecied to come.

While reading the book of Jonah, I felt Jonah being vomited out of the whale to preach to the Ninevites was symbolizing a type of Paul, as Paul was chosen to preach to ALL nations. I made a study on this and was quite fascinated with the similarity, as Jesus also mentioned Jonah and the Ninevites in the Gospels. Thoughts?

Jonah 3:1 And there is a word of YHWH unto Jonah a second time saying, 2 "Rise, go unto Nineveh, the great city, and proclaim unto it the proclamation that I am speaking unto thee;'

Acts 9:15 The Lord said yet toward him, "Be thou going! that a vessel of-choice/ekloghV <1589> is to Me this-one, of the to bear the Name of Me in before nations and kings--sons besides of Israel".

 

[Thekla]

I think, given the opportunistic use of a distorted understanding in order to claim a score of personal (patronizing) victory in this thread, it best not to participate here.

Lord have mercy +

 

[PassthePeace1]

Why do you continue to perverse and purposely distort the Catholic Church's view on scripture?

Seriously can you actually fess up as to why? And please do not give a song and dance routine and cherry pick etc.

What is you overall motive here? You come here with you phoney "I agree with 98% of the Catholic Church Doctrine and love and hold them with much and great respect" non sense but day in and day you continue to purposley alter and purposly take things out of their context and put it into yours.

So please come out from behind the curtain and tell us what exactly is your overall motive. And again please do not give us you disguise you have been useing.

And your use of double standards is quite tiresome as well. the LCMS view and interpretation is for the LCMS Alone by the LCMS ALONE and interpreted by the LCMS Alone, Fact pure and simple FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thanks.

Maybe it's his way of "kicking against the goads".

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think, given the opportunistic use of a distorted understanding in order to claim a score of personal (patronizing) victory in this thread, it best not to participate here.

Lord have mercy +

I like the "Victories" described in the book of Joshua which I can also view in the jewish/hebrew book of Revelation concerning that "Great City"

Joshua 6:4 And seven Priests shall bear seven trumpets of the jubilees to-faces of the ark, and in day the seventh ye shall compass the City seven of times, and the Priests shall blow in trumpets/07782 showphar, ...........
16 and becoming in time the seventh, the Seven Priests blew in Trumpets and Y@howshuwa` is saying to the people "shout ye! that YHWH gave to ye the City

Revelation 8:6 And the Seven Messengers having the Seven Trumpets make ready themselves that they-should-be-trumpeting

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I'm glad to hear that the EO also embraces Sola Scriptura.

No, we were there and established the canon. That you upstarts rejected earlier fanciful notions of the Reformers, and spun the term to mean something that already had a name- well, that's just peachy.

That you purport to embrace canon- at least wrt to scriptures (which you don't, your canon is six stacks short of load)- well, welcome home to a slice of orthodoxy.

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 Know that you reject canon, as I stated above. So what's new?

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."

The canon of scripture is beyond brilliant, it's God-breathed. The canon for the Church is Holy Tradition as we have received it- including the measure of that which shall be called scripture. That you reject portions of scripture, as well as the remaining canon- well, that's why you're a cafeteria Lutheran.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No, we were there and established the canon. That you upstarts rejected earlier fanciful notions of the Reformers, and spun the term to mean something that already had a name- well, that's just peachy.

That you purport to embrace canon- at least wrt to scriptures (which you don't, your canon is six stacks short of load)- well, welcome home to a slice of orthodoxy.

I Know that you reject canon, as I stated above. So what's new?

The canon of scripture is beyond brilliant, it's God-breathed. The canon for the Church is Holy Tradition as we have received it- including the measure of that which shall be called scripture.

That you reject portions of scripture, as well as the remaining canon- well, that's why you're a cafeteria Lutheran.

What portions has he rejected? Just curious

 

[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.

No,

If the EO accepts Scripture as the Rule (canon) then it accepts Sola Scripture because that IS Sola Scriptura.

The canon for the Church is Holy Tradition as we have received it

So, which is your canon? Scripture as you posted earlier or "Tradition" as understood by your denomination? Or, like the RCC, is it equally: The Tradition of the denomination + Scripture as the denomination interprets + the Leadership of the denomination (its own decisions, rulings, interpretations, arbitrations) all equally (the RCC/LDS canon) or something else?





... back to a discussion of the points in the Orthodox Forum that are listed as reasons against accepting Scripture as the canon/rule/norma normans...




.

 

[Blackknight]

So, which is your canon? Scripture as you posted earlier or "Tradition" as understood by your denomination?

For us Scripture IS Tradition, they are inseparable. How the Scripture is interpreted also must agree with Patristic Tradition so we have a long, established history.

 

[lionroar0]

So, which is your canon? Scripture as you posted earlier or "Tradition" as understood by your denomination? Or, like the RCC, is it equally: The Tradition of the denomination + Scripture as the denomination interprets + the Leadership of the denomination (its own decisions, rulings, interpretations, arbitrations) all equally (the RCC/LDS canon) or something else?

Delete some else's belives insert CJ'S.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

For us Scripture IS Tradition, they are inseparable. How the Scripture is interpreted also must agree with Patristic Tradition so we have a long, established history.

That would also apply to Catholicism correct as they also use Pratristic Tradition if I am not mistaken

Is Catholicism the same Church that the Apostles set up - Christian Forums
Is Catholicism the same Church that the Apostles set up

 

[Yeznik]

Any Orthodox Church has been teaching the same thing consistently nearly 2000 years by their methods. Now whether people agree with it or not is a different story. But, it has a method of teaching which is consistently traceable from the beginning of the Church. The key factor is that any Orthodox Church uses Scripture in a consistent method that produces consistent results. Comparatively, the process or formula of Sola Scriptura, as logical and methodical, as it claims to be, consistently produces different results using the exact same methodology. Not only does it produce different results but produces contrary results to itself as a process.
Let me give another example regarding the contrary results, if I use the Sola Scripture to make a conclusion “A” and another person uses Sola Scriptura and makes the conclusion “-A” then the process cancels itself out. Here is the situation I had, which I posted earlier. Calvin believed Christ had no siblings, according to Sola Scriptura, Calvinists believe that Christ had siblings again according to Sola Scriptura. Now this is applying the exact same process but producing exactly polar opposite results therefore making it an inconsistent and self defeating process of acquiring knowledge from Scripture. [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Calvin believed Christ had no siblings, according to Sola Scriptura, Calvinists believe that Christ had siblings again according to Sola Scriptura. Now this is applying the exact same process but producing exactly polar opposite results therefore making it an inconsistent and self defeating process of acquiring knowledge from Scripture.

Hmmm that is interesting. Not that I follow any of Calvin's or Luther's writings much.
I wonder how Tyndale viewed that. Will have to look it up. I have a thread on him btw

Ratz! I spelled "scriptura" wrong!

http://www.christianforums.com/t1179374/
Sola Scritura and William Tyndale

 

[MariaRegina]

Since Holy Scriptures are an honored part of our Holy Tradition, Sola Scripture cannot be valid.

Our other Holy Traditions include:
The Divine Liturgy which has been established by Christ Himself
Our Holy Services: Vespers, etc. which are derived from the Hebrew Worship and their reading of the psalms and Torah
Our Holy Mysteries (Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Confession, Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders, Holy Crowning, Tonsuring of Monastics, Holy Unction, Funeral Service) which were ordained by Christ Himself.
Our Byzantine Chant which is derived from the Hebrew Temple Worship
Our Temple Architecture which comes from the Jewish Temples. (Incidentally several people have said that if you take away the icons in our temples, you can see the similarity between the E.O. Temples and the Jewish Temples.)
Our Holy Councils especially the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils are also God-inspired as the First Council was held in Jerusalem as mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles by Luke. This tradition established our Church as a Conciliar Church.
The Veneration of Icons was also established by Christ when He imparted His Holy Image on a canvas and gave it to the servant of the King of Ephesus who was cured of his leprosy.

I can be so bold to say that if you continue to attack the Eastern Orthodox Church and her Holy Tradition(which includes the Holy Bible) then you are crossing the line to becoming Anti-Semitic since our roots are Semitic.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Since Holy Scriptures are an honored part of our Holy Tradition, Sola Scripture cannot be valid.

Our other Holy Traditions include:
The Divine Liturgy which has been established by Christ Himself
Our Holy Services: Vespers, etc. which are derived from the Hebrew Worship and their reading of the psalms and Torah
Our Holy Mysteries (Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Confession, Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders, Holy Crowning, Tonsuring of Monastics, Holy Unction, Funeral Service) which were ordained by Christ Himself.
Our Byzantine Chant which is derived from the Hebrew Temple Worship
Our Temple Architecture which comes from the Jewish Temples. (Incidentally several people have said that if you take away the icons in our temples, you can see the similarity between the E.O. Temples and the Jewish Temples.)

I can be so bold to say that if you continue to attack the Eastern Orthodox Church and her Holy Services (which are part of our Holy Tradition) then you are crossing the line to becoming Anti-Semitic since our roots are Semitic.

I have been labeled that many times by a lot of Christians [including some relatives] just because of my view of the "richman/lazarus" parable of Luke 16 and Revelation. Never really heard of it the way you put it concerning the EO.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Delete some else's belives insert CJ'S.

Let's review the posts of "some else's belives"...

How can we argue against the notion that scripture is the rule? That is the meaning of the word canon. Brilliant.

So, according to Rdr Iakovos, the Rule/canon/norma normans is Scripture. That is Sola Scriptura.



But, according to the same Rdr Iakovos...

The canon for the Church is Holy Tradition as we have received it

So, it seems to ME, either the poster is simply unsure, contradicting himself, or means that the canon for the EO is BOTH Scripture AND Tradition as the EO understands such as one whole and he simply misspoke when he posted that the canon IS Scripture (he should have written, "is Scripture plus other things" or "Scripture as a sub category of other thing(s)).


When I was a student of Catholicism, my teachers taught me that the Canon of Scripture is NOT the canon of the Church - it is but one PART of such. The canon for the Church, I was taught in the RCC, is 3 things held inseparably: The Tradition of the RCC as currently chosen, defined and understood by the RCC, the Scripture in the heart of the RCC as interpreted by the RCC to agree with the views of the RCC, and the Magisterium of the RCC - its own views, intepretations, decisions, rulings, arbitrations: these 3 things EQUALLY and INSEPARABLY as ONE WHOLE and as ONE CANON/rule/norma normans.

The RCC is opposed to Sola Scriptura for two reasons, I was taught. First, because it does not subject itself only to Scripture but to the "three-legged stool" (as Mormons call it) of its own tradition, the Scripture in its own heart (not in any tome) and the views, rulings, decisions, interpretations and arbitrations of its own self - these three EQUALLY and INSEPARABLY are the "canon, rule, plumbline" for the RCC as its views, rulings, interpretations and decisions are evaluated for their correctness. It tooks to its OWN heart, Tradtion and views as the norm for the self-same. The second reason is that such assumes that the Church NEEDS to be evaluated for the correctness of its views, and since the Church cannot err in official matters of faith and morals, such is simply unnecessary. The RCC IS correct in such matters, there is nothing it needs to evaluate or norm, Sola Scriptura thus addresses an issue which is moot in the singular case of the CC.


Is that the EO canon, too? The "three-legged-stool?" Or is it what was posted first, "Scripture is the Rule" (Sola Scriptura) or what was posted later, "EO Tradition?"




.

 

[MariaRegina]

So, according to Rdr Iakovos, the Rule/canon/norma normans is Scripture. That is Sola Scriptura.

That is another fallacy of logic, CJ.

Repeating a false statement will not make it true.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That is another fallacy of logic, CJ.

Repeating a false statement will not make it true.Hitler tried that too.

You didn't post what statement I made that is a Hitlarian "fallacy of logic."
Or what statement I made that is "false."

Comparing one to Hitler and accusing of lying, while possibly emotionally powerful, just doesn't add much to the conversation or contribute anything to understanding?




.

 

[lionroar0]

You didn't post what statement I made that is a Hitlarian "fallacy of logic."
Or what statement I made that is "false."

Comparing one to Hitler and accusing of lying, while possibly emotionally powerful, just doesn't add much to the conversation or contribute anything to understanding?
.

What kind of reaction did u expect?