EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

[Thekla]

Understanding is not necessarily achieved through repetition; something else is needed.

 

[jckstraw72]

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.



.

1. you can respond to my posts, but try to make it pertinent to my post.
2. you are trying to make us agree by repeatedly posting the same shlep over and over. thats what you do in every thread youre in.
3. my post was in response to one particular post, thus its literally impossible that it bore witness to my understanding of the entire thread.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

We hold to something for 2000 years that we'll call "Y.

1. Please show that the following norma normans was used in the year 9:

The Divine Liturgy of the EO
The Holy Services of the EO
The Holy Mysteries (Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Confession, Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders, Holy Crowning, Tonsuring of Monastics, Holy Unction, Funeral Service) of the EO
The Byzantine Chant of the EO
The Temple Architecture of the EO


2. THAT something is used doesn't make it the best. The LDS uses "the three legged stool" of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium - and yet I doubt you think that's helpful or best.

" 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."

WHEN a practice begins seems moot to the issue at hand, but Moses, the Apostles and Jesus all used Sola Scriptura. When was the first time Christians used the following as the norma normans?

The Divine Liturgy of the EO
The Holy Services of the EO
The Holy Mysteries (Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Confession, Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders, Holy Crowning, Tonsuring of Monastics, Holy Unction, Funeral Service) of the EO
The Byzantine Chant of the EO
The Temple Architecture of the EO


Since all the following lived before 1500 AD, how did they know about Sola Scriptura if no one had thought of this praxis yet?

"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." Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)

"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)


.









.

 

[boswd]

After Christ asscended and the years went on with the Apostle's and their teachings, what was the Authority to them and to the generations after them before the Bible was cannonzied?

Thanks

 

[Thekla]

1. Please show that the following norma normans was used in the year 9:


2. THAT something is used doesn't make it the best. The LDS uses "the three legged stool" of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium - and yet I doubt you think that's helpful or best.



.

You are evaluating the praxis of the LDS based on outcome. If the praxis of sola scriptura cannot be evaluated by its outcome, why should any other praxis be evaluated by outcome ?

 

[Standing Up]

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.

This is the issue--some groups (EO, RCC, LDS) do not think that the faith before the NT is the same as the faith after the NT.

It is, however, the same. The quotes shown you earlier from Lk, Jn, Acts, etc show that it is.

ADDED: These evidently weren't around 2000 years ago however.

The Divine Liturgy of the EO
The Holy Services of the EO
The Holy Mysteries (Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Confession, Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders, Holy Crowning, Tonsuring of Monastics, Holy Unction, Funeral Service) of the EO
The Byzantine Chant of the EO
The Temple Architecture of the EO



The question is why write it down? Why not let Tradition take over?

Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

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.

Yes, the Spirit teaches all men.

So, you believe God because of the Church? I believe God because it is written.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. you can respond to my posts, but try to make it pertinent to my post.

Thank you. I did. I noted it was entirely wrong at every point. Thus, every single thing I said was pertinent.

2. you are trying to make us agree

Quote me where I said that.

I could not care less if you agree with the praxis of Sola Scriptura or if you use it. In fact, I don't even know if an EO is permitted to. The discussion here is not what you should think or do or agree to (not everything is about you, my friend). It's about the arguments that the poster said the EO uses against the praxis. And a discussion of them.




.

 

[racer]

Sorry, but I am still cracking up from that

As if I didn't already suspect it--being an Okie and all that--It's been confirmed--"I know I'm a 'redneck'" and I didn't even have to mow my lawn and find a car

 

[jckstraw72]

This is the issue--some groups (EO, RCC, LDS) do not think that the faith before the NT is the same as the faith after the NT.

It is, however, the same. The quotes shown you earlier from Lk, Jn, Acts, etc show that it is.

i dont understand this assertion. we believe that the Christian faith has always been the same.

The question is why write it down? Why not let Tradition take over?

Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

well we don't see a dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition --- Scripture is a very important part of our Tradition so we wouldnt say we let Scripture take over rather than Tradition. Its good and helpful to have things written down. I can be edified by reading the Scripture at home which would not be possible if it weren't written down, unless I had the Tradition memorized.

Yes, the Spirit teaches all men.

So, you believe God because of the Church? I believe God because it is written.

I would say I believe because of experience with God, and once I believe, that belief is nurtured by the community of the faithful who possess a holy and divinely inspired book. Neither the Church nor the Scriptures are the reason I believe.

 

[MariaRegina]

...

 

[racer]

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.

How come nobody told me that you get to call the shots even in the threads which you do not start? How do you qualify yourself to tell people what they really mean as if they don't know themselves? Sorry, but you'll have to provide some credentials that show you to be an educated authority on Protestantism or Sola Scriptura. Until then anything you say is just like anything anybody else says here---your opinion.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Understanding is not necessarily achieved through repetition; something else is needed.

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.



.

 

[Standing Up]

i dont understand this assertion. we believe that the Christian faith has always been the same. -snip-

If so, then Scripture and Tradition would align without problems and be found 2000 years ago.

Short story that some are vaguely familiar with--I searched the scriptures about the days and dates of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ Jesus. God revealed what happened, aligning the four gospel into one (which is how early Christians thought about them until Justin Martyr begins to note them as plural c160). A friend said, was that ever taught? I didn't know (didn't care, but he cared about Tradition) and so went searching the very early Church fathers. The answer was yes it had been.

So, Scripture and Tradition should align and be found 2000 years ago.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

After Christ asscended and the years went on with the Apostle's and their teachings, what was the Authority to them and to the generations after them before the Bible was cannonzied?

Thanks

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?




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If so, then Scripture and Tradition would align without problems and be found 2000 years ago.

1. WHOSE Tradition? RCC? UMC? LCMS? LDS? EO? The RCC replies that ONLY the RCC may determine what is and is not "Tradition" and that such means whatever the RCC alone currently says it means.

2. If one's view is the canon for the evaluation of one's view, then how is it possible for one's views to be arbitrated as incorrect? Isn't this not then a canon at all but simply a determination of whether self and others agree with self? Self always will, others always won't (at least completely). But this has nothing whatsoever to do with who is right, only who agrees with ME.



.

 

[racer]

[/color][/size][/font]
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."

You know this is such a tired irrelevant argument if I've ever saw one. If your church being 2000 years old means anything, it only means that you've had 2000 years to further convolute and obfuscate the unstubtantiated and non-biblical teachings that your church painted itself inot a corner with by claiming infallibility and ng to be the "one true church."

Like Jkstraw said, you can call yourself a teapot, but that doesn't make you one.

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.

Now this is funny. You're actually calling Protestants "narcissistic?" Let us know how many Protestants you know who claim that their church is the One True Church and that this church possesses the "fullness of truth" will ya?

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

I'd say that beats having no logical train of thought or ability to comprehensively rationalize thought.

I'm glad that you said "it seems to me,"

I'm glad to see you acknowledge this. It simply disproves you accusation that he was "narcissistic."

which allows us that you may be mistaken

We have continually and openly admited that we are not infallible and always state what we believe according to our understanding. It seems you keep missing that part.

- and you are-

Now, that's a bit narcissistic.

Oy vey.

Chill out, dude. If we're right it won't count against you if you don't believe in Sola Scriptura . . .

 

[MariaRegina]

I am coming to the conclusion with the repetitious teachings of CJ, that the intention of this thread appears to be the proselytization of Eastern Orthodox Christians into accepting CJs version of Sola Scriptura.

I am therefore unsubscribing. This thread seems to be pointless. Since I was taught that deconverting from Orthodoxy is the sin of apostacy, I will not commit that sin as I believe in the unchanging beliefs of the Holy Ancient Church as revealed by Christ and as practiced by Orthodox Christians today.

I will end this post with one question: CJ, did you ever wonder why the well known Lutheran scholar, Dr. Pelican Jaroslav, converted to Eastern Orthodoxy? Did he also reject Sola Scriptura? Did you ever read his final essays and thoughts?

 

[racer]

It is obvious from the repetitious teachings of CJ, that the intention of this thread is to proselytize Eastern Orthodox Christians into accepting his version of Sola Scriptura.

I am therefore unsubscribing. This thread is pointless because I am not converting to Lutheranism. I will not commit that sin of apostacy as I believe in the unchanging beliefs of the Holy Ancient Church as practiced by Orthodox Christians today.

I will end this post with one question: CJ, did you ever wonder why the well known Lutheran scholar, Dr. Pelican Jaroslav, converted to Eastern Orthodoxy? Did he also reject Sola Scriptura? Did you ever read his final essays and thoughts?

you are certainly free to respond or ignore in this forum--your choice. If he didn't want to afford you that choice, he would have posted it in a forum in which "you" could not respond . . . .

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It is obvious from the repetitious teachings of CJ, that the intention of this thread is to proselytize Eastern Orthodox Christians into accepting his version of Sola Scriptura.

So, you KNOW my "intent" whereas I do not? What gives you this special ability?

I stated that I could care less if you (or any member of the EO) uses the praxis of Sola Scriptura. As I posted, I don't even know if you are permitted to. Is this thread entitled, "EO's MUST USE SOLA SCRIPTURA?" Check it and see.

This thread is a copy/paste from another to discuss arguements used in the EO against Sola Scriptura which the original poster (from whom I copied the post) discribed as "weak." It's a discussion of those arguments.

Friend, what you believe and do is your stuff. This thread is not about what you believe or do. I don't have a CLUE how you could come to the inclusion that it's all about you.

This thread is pointless because I am not converting to Lutheranism.

Who asked you to? Who wants you do? No one known to me....

But if you are going to rebuke a praxis - as you have publicly done here - it SHOULD matter to you if such is true or just or correct. But if that doesn't matter to you, then you're right, you should have never entered the discussion at all rather than the "attack then run" approach.





.

 

[Blackknight]

I am also done here, this thread is going nowhere fast.