EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This thread does deal with Revelation.

Nope.

Sola Scriptura is entirely about the embrace of Scripture as the norma normans. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of revelation. Let's try sticking to the subject of the thread.

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

Of course not. Sola Scriptura is the praxis of using Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans. It would help our discussion if you'd discuss what we are discussing.


This time, read the following.



The Official, Historic Definition of Sola Scriptura:


"The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (Ditto, 3). "No human being's writings dare be put on a par with it, but ... everything must be subjected to it" (Ditto, 9).


"The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)


Sola Scriptura IS....


An embrace of God's written word as the final "Rule" (staight edge) or "Canon" (measuring stick) or "norma normans" to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.




Sola Scriptura is NOT....


1. Doctrine. It's praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: "The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished." Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it's praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God's inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.

2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It's not hermeneutics, it's norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.

3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura "existed" just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the "size" of the Scripture was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the "canon" (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it's moot to the praxis).

4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called "private arbitration." SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called "public arbitration." It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.

5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It's just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use one's star gazing as the canon for the evaluation of doctrines.



Some Notes:

1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not "norm" this - thus we'd have an unnormed or abiblical teaching that we'd not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus' mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture to a suffient degree to be so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it's not technically a part of it.


2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn't guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.




Some quotes:


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]"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." [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)[/FONT]

"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)


I hope that helps.


Pax


- Josiah





. [/FONT]

 

[jckstraw72]

the belief that SS is the proper norma normans is a doctrine. i dont know why you insist on saying its not, but you are actually quite dogmatic about it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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'

Sorry, but I am still cracking up from that

 

[sunlover1]

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.

We 'are' the church.
So I don't understand why you say people "fear" the church.
He did send His Spirit upon His "church" (we each are God carriers)

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.

This is opinion, we have no way to know this.

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.

The church will always prevail... no matter how dark it gets.

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.

Some of us do not adhere to what you call Holy Tradition and so there really is too a dichotomy.
But yes, of course it's the people (church) who 'carry' that word in either their hearts or on
pages of paper, that pass it on from one to another.
Jesus was here in the flesh and now we are His fleshly body,
As he is in the earth so are we. He manifests 'through' us, His body...

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.

I think you may have an incorrect idea of what SS means.
Because the early church did indeed check Scripture to make sure what
the religious leaders were telling them lined up with Scripture.
I see nothing wrong with such practice, but also do not condemn you in your choice.

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.

Not to be rude, but that doesnt mean that your system is more efficient/correct.
There is more than one denomination who does it the same way and they do have
different doctrines because they're not in agreement... even though they use the
same Scriptures and the same tradition.

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.

Except that you're misrepresenting it (I doubt you're doing that on purpose though)
Perhaps you dont understnd the meaning of SS.
I see nothing wrong in checking what other's say against Scripture.
Where else can I check? (IMO) I mean I could ask "the church" but first
I'd have to figure out which of the denominations that refer to themselves
as "the" church really was "the church" if any... then I'd have to get an answer.
I"ve posed Scripture questions on more than one occasion to those who belong
to "THE" church and have been told, "Oh, well we dont know really".

So there ya go.
I think I'm alright right where I am, relying on the Spirit of God to reveal truth to me,
through Scripture, through other's, through His still small voice......

Good plan?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

the belief that SS is the proper norma normans is a doctrine. i dont know why you insist on saying its not, but you are actually quite dogmatic about it.

I suppose it depends on your definition. If you believe that the reality that I drank a cup of coffee (actually, 3) this morning makes drinking coffee a Christian DOGMA - a matter of highest importance for salvation - then I get your point.

But, typically, "doctrine" is a TEACHING. "Toyota's are good cars!" is a teaching. "Starbucks House Blend is the coffee to drink in the morning" is a teaching. DRIVING a Toyota or DRINKING Starbucks coffee is praxis. "God answers prayer" is a teaching. "I prayed this morning" is a praxis. Like Sola Scriptura, the praxis may be an APPLICATION of a doctrine (I drank Starbucks House Blend because I think it's good coffee - although if i could afford it, there's a type of Hawaiian Kona Coffee that I actually think is best). See the difference? IMHO (and you may disagree), drinking 3 cups of Starbucks House Blend Coffee this morning is not only not necessary for my eternal salvation, but has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. Perhaps we disagree..... And IMHO, our disagreeing over our morning bev is not an issue over which it is appropriate for a denomination to dispatch unusers to heaven a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. Again, we may disagree.


Let's see if we can return to the issue of this thread?



Peace...


- Josiah




.

 

[jckstraw72]

Sola Scriptura is the proper norma normans is a teaching!

Praxis derives from teaching. I can't just saying fasting is a praxis not a teaching, bc behind the praxis of fasting is the teaching that fasting is beneficial for my soul.

 

[Standing Up]

Here's a link that may help in understanding:

By the completeness of the Scriptures is meant that they contain all the extant revelations of God designed to be a rule of faith and practice to the Church. It is not denied that God reveals himself, even his eternal power and Godhead, by his works, and has done so from the beginning of the world. But all the truths thus revealed are clearly made known in his written Word.
Systematic Theology - Volume I | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

It is not denied that the Scriptures contain many things hard to be understood; that they require diligent study; that all men need the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to right knowledge and true faith. But it is maintained that in all things necessary to salvation they are sufficiently plain to be understood even by the unlearned.

What Protestants deny on this subject is, that Christ has appointed any officer, or class of officers, in his Church to whose interpretation of the Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they affirm is that He has made it obligatory upon every man to search the Scriptures for himself, and determine on his own discretion what they require him to believe and to do.
Systematic Theology - Volume I | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[jckstraw72]

the problem there is that it basically states that the faith cannot be known without first studying the Scriptures and coming to your own conclusions. We say that the faith is already known and it is from that faith that the Scriptures were written, and so the Scriptures bear witness to the Christian faith, but they are not its origin. We begin with the Apostolic Tradition and use the Scriptures to nourish that faith that we already know and live.

 

[racer]

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.

No--misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what Scripture teaches and about the definition of Sola Scriptura are the nasty little culprits. Clearly a difference than what your assertion argues.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I suppose it depends on your definition. If you believe that the reality that I drank a cup of coffee (actually, 3) this morning makes drinking coffee a Christian DOGMA - a matter of highest importance for salvation - then I get your point.

But, typically, "doctrine" is a TEACHING. "Toyota's are good cars!" is a teaching. "Starbucks House Blend is the coffee to drink in the morning" is a teaching. DRIVING a Toyota or DRINKING Starbucks coffee is praxis. "God answers prayer" is a teaching. "I prayed this morning" is a praxis. Like Sola Scriptura, the praxis may be an APPLICATION of a doctrine (I drank Starbucks House Blend because I think it's good coffee - although if i could afford it, there's a type of Hawaiian Kona Coffee that I actually think is best). See the difference? IMHO (and you may disagree), drinking 3 cups of Starbucks House Blend Coffee this morning is not only not necessary for my eternal salvation, but has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. Perhaps we disagree..... And IMHO, our disagreeing over our morning bev is not an issue over which it is appropriate for a denomination to dispatch unusers to heaven a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke. Again, we may disagree.

Sola Scriptura is the proper norma normans is a teaching!

Praxis derives from teaching. I can't just saying fasting is a praxis not a teaching, bc behind the praxis of fasting is the teaching that fasting is beneficial for my soul.

Fasting is beneficial for souls is a teaching.
Fasting is a practice.

Starbucks is great coffee is a teaching.
My drinking 3 cups of coffee this morming is a practice.

A practice MAY be an application of a teaching. I drive an Toyota and I think Toyotas are good cars. But I use to drive a Buick (until it was stollen) and it was a piece of junk. I drank Starbucks this morning, but I think there's a type of kona coffee that's better - I just can't afford it regularly.

Is there a reason for this diversion?



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

the problem there is that it basically states that the faith cannot be known without first studying the Scriptures and coming to your own conclusions.

Every single point of that is wrong.
Sola Scriptura says no such thing.

Sola Scriptura is the practice of embracing Scripture as the canon/norma normans for the evaluation of teachings.

It says nothing about personal faith. It says nothing about coming to personal conclusions.



Let's TRY this yet ANOTHER time:


The Official, Historic Definition of Sola Scriptura:


"The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine"(Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged"(Ditto, 3). "No human being's writings dare be put on a par with it, but ... everything must be subjected to it"(Ditto, 9).


"The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)


Sola Scriptura IS....


An embrace of God's written word as the final "Rule" (staight edge) or "Canon" (measuring stick) or "norma normans" to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.




Sola Scriptura is NOT....


1. Doctrine. It's praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: "The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished." Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it's praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God's inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.

2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It's not hermeneutics, it's norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.

3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura "existed" just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the "size" of the Scripture was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the "canon" (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it's moot to the praxis).

4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called "private arbitration." SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called "public arbitration." It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.

5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It's just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use one's star gazing as the canon for the evaluation of doctrines.



Some Notes:

1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not "norm" this - thus we'd have an unnormed or abiblical teaching that we'd not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus' mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture to a suffient degree to be so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it's not technically a part of it.


2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn't guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.




Some quotes:


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]"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." [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)[/FONT]

"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)


I hope that helps.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[jckstraw72]

i was replying to the other guy. stop repeating the same posts over and over. we don't agree with you. get. over. it.

 

[racer]

i was replying to the other guy. stop repeating the same posts over and over. we don't agree with you. get. over. it.

Well, if you're not interested in what Josiah has to say, then ignore his posts. Any of us can retreat to our own forum and make any non/un-challenged comments or untruths about another faith's practice. That's just being facetious--to make comments about other faiths that people of those faiths can not correct or challenge.

He's calling the hand of whoever made that post. So, if that person is so sure of his/her assertions, they should come forth and restate the otherwise unchallenged statements made in the Orthodox forums.

 

[jckstraw72]

Well, if you're not interested in what Josiah has to say, then ignore his posts. Any of us can retreat to our own forum and make any non/un-challenged comments or untruths about another faith's practice. That's just being facetious--to make comments about other faiths that people of those faiths can not correct or challenge.

He's calling the hand of whoever made that post. So, if that person is so sure of his/her assertions, they should come forth and restate the otherwise unchallenged statements made in the Orthodox forums.

no, he quoted and responded to me, when I had not been responding to him. he's free to post here, but it gets irritating when people just post the exact same thing over and over, as if we were too stupid to get it the first time -- when perhaps we just disagree.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

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




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

We hold to something for 2000 years that we'll call "Y." 500+ years later, some people come along, and hundreds of years later they hold to a truncated version of Y, we'll call it 'y,' only they're calling it "Z" and telling us we believe in "Z."

Very narcissistic. In real terms, you believe in 'y,' and we believe that 'y' is somewhat true, if understood in the context in which 'Y' was given and received. There is no syllogism to remotely suggest we believe in 'y,' not even close.

No offense, but your grasp of and upon logic is very tenuous and slipping.

But, according to the same Rdr Iakovos...

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)).

I'm glad that you said "it seems to me," which allows us that you may be mistaken- and you are- and poorly sighted, in a manner of speaking. There is no "Tradition and scripture" any more than there is Iakovos and right leg. One is intrinsically bound in the other- and the severing of this unity, as you practice, leaves one an amputee. But not according to you- no, you have the preferred body that God intended.
Oy vey.

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?"

I don't imagine for one moment that further explanation on my part would be efficacious.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Every single point of that is wrong.
Sola Scriptura says no such thing.

Sola Scriptura is the practice of embracing Scripture as the canon/norma normans for the evaluation of teachings.

It says nothing about personal faith. It says nothing about coming to personal conclusions.



Let's TRY this yet ANOTHER time:


The Official, Historic Definition of Sola Scriptura:


"The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine"(Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged"(Ditto, 3). "No human being's writings dare be put on a par with it, but ... everything must be subjected to it"(Ditto, 9).


"The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm (norma normans) for all that is officially confessed in the church." (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at official website)


Sola Scriptura IS....


An embrace of God's written word as the final "Rule" (staight edge) or "Canon" (measuring stick) or "norma normans" to serve as the final Standard, Plumbline as Christians evaluate positions, especially doctrine.




Sola Scriptura is NOT....


1. Doctrine. It's praxis, but yes it is an application of a doctrine - the doctrine of Scripture, which Catholics and Protestants share. Here is the Catholic position: "The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God is the author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as God wished." Sola Scriptura applies this doctrine, but it itself is not a doctrine - it's praxis. Thus, we need to be clear as to the doctrine part (Scripture is God's inerrant holy written word) and the praxis part (using such as the norma normans). Sola Scriptura refers to the later.

2. Hermeneutics. It is not a praxis for the intepretation of Scriptures. It's not hermeneutics, it's norming. Bob says Jesus was 15 feet tall (a position he may or may not have come to by the interpretation of Scriptures). Sola Scriptura addresses the norming or evaluating of that position by establishing the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans.

3. Sola Toma or Sola Biblica. WHATEVER the Scripture is at that point, it is the Rule. Sola Scriptura "existed" just as much at Mt. Sinai as it does today, only the "size" of the Scripture was smaller. Christians (excluding Mormons) believe that the "canon" (authoritative books of Scripture) is closed so this is now a moot issue (except, perhaps, for the largely moot DEUTEROcanonical books about which there is no consensus but since no dogma comes from such anyway, it's moot to the praxis).

4. Arbitration. Obviously some process is needed to determine if the position "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the Canon). Sola Scriptura does not address this issue; it only addresses the Canon issue. SOME who embrace the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) join the RCC in embracing private, individual arbitration (although rarely as radically or as extreme as the RCC does). This is called "private arbitration." SOME that embrace Sola Scriptura embrace corporate arbitration in various forms. This is called "public arbitration." It largely depends on whether one embraces the Holy Spirit and this process to be singular/individual or corporate/joint. But the Rule of Scripture deals with the Rule - not the arbitration according to that Rule.

5. Revelation. Sola Scriptura does not affirm that all divine revelation is confined to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture itself teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. It's just that the praxis of Sola Scriptura does not use one's star gazing as the canon for the evaluation of doctrines.



Some Notes:

1. TECHNICALLY, Sola Scriptura does NOT say that all dogma must be taught in the Bible (again, remember - its a praxis and not a teaching). However, this IS a ramification of the praxis. If Sam taught that Jesus was 15 feet tall, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture does not "norm" this - thus we'd have an unnormed or abiblical teaching that we'd not regard as dogma. If Sam said that Jesus was born in Los Angeles, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture reveals this to be in error and thus heresy. If Sam said that Jesus' mother was named Mary, it is likely it would be arbitrated that Scripture norms this and it is correct. Thus, for a teaching to be normed via this praxis, it would need to be found in Scripture to a suffient degree to be so arbitrated. Because this ramification is rather clear, it is sometimes mentioned in connection with the praxis - but it's not technically a part of it.


2. The Doctrine of Scripture says that SCRIPTURE is inerrant. The praxis of Sola Scriptura does not say that every use of such will be infallible. I may have a perfect hammer but it doesn't guarentee that I will make a perfect table. But it probably is better than using my finger.




Some quotes:


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]"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." [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)[/FONT]

"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)


I hope that helps.


Pax


- Josiah





.

Ironically, appealing to a cut-andpaste version of the apostolic tradition

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Ironically, appealing to a cut-andpaste version of the apostolic tradition

Was it really necessary to quote the whole post

 

[Standing Up]

the problem there is that it basically states that the faith cannot be known without first studying the Scriptures and coming to your own conclusions. We say that the faith is already known and it is from that faith that the Scriptures were written, and so the Scriptures bear witness to the Christian faith, but they are not its origin. We begin with the Apostolic Tradition and use the Scriptures to nourish that faith that we already know and live.

Christ--Apostles/witnesses--written is how it went.

LK. 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.

JN. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

What some assume is that all doctrine was not once for all delivered to the saints, but it was:

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

So, Christ---Apostles/witnesses---written. (This is also known by the words of Jesus, calling Sons of Thunder--the first and last apostles to die.)

 

[jckstraw72]

i agree with that Standing Up. The Church existed before the NT and it had its faith before the NT, thus the Scriptures cannot be the ultimate authority on Church matters because the Church is able to survive without them. We need the grace of the Spirit, and thank God He has given us His Holy Scriptures, but they are not absolutely necessary for being a Christian. The faithful community knows the faith and interprets the Scripture via that faith, the community does not derive its faith from the Scriptures.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

no, he quoted and responded to me, when I had not been responding to him. he's free to post here, but it gets irritating when people just post the exact same thing over and over, as if we were too stupid to get it the first time -- when perhaps we just disagree.

1. I didn't realize I'm not permitted to respond to your posts.

2. No one asked you to agree with anything.

3. Your post revealed a complete misunderstanding of the subject of the thread. I addressed that.



.