EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What you write here has merit. The proof that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah had to be demonstrated to fellow jews by searching the scriptures to see if Jesus fullfilled those prophecies.

Fifty times, Jesus said something - and then held that up to the light of SCRIPTURE. The norma normans He was using was Scripture. The norma normans He was thereby exampling was SCRIPTURE. Did He ever use any other norma normans? No.

Yes, people "searched the Scriptures." Did they search anything else? Did they use church design? Did they search the order of worship in their congregations? They they serah a chant?

Your post does not defend sola scripture but Apostolic Tradition. Your post is an apologetic AGAINST sola scripture, but you havent realized it.

Where does Jesus say, "Beleive all that I say because I agree with Me?" Where did He indicate that the Tradition of Jesus is the Rule for the words of Jesus?

I know what you mean by Apostolic Tradition, but as you know - it's a phantom. The only teachings we have from any of the 13 or 14 Apostles is found in only one place - Scripture. I realize that the Mormons believe they taught much of what is unique in the LDS so that LDS tradition is Apostolic tradition but they have ZERO confirmation of that since NONE of what their unique tradition is found in anything we have from any Apostle. It's not Apostolic in that sense. The reality is: Tradition is simply the views, practices, spiritualiies of SELF. Now, there are Traditions that are quite ecumenical and broad - in a few cases, embracing virtually every Christian, but those are not the things we debate, investigate, search. What we dispute are the divisive things, the unique things, the denominational distinctives. In those, "Tradition" (put whatever adjective you like in front of the word) is simply: "What I believe, feel, do...." Note that when the EO poster told me about all the various aspects of the EO canon, she stressed, "OUR liturgy... OUR church designs...," When someone stated, "Tradition is the norm" they don't mean the Tradition of anyone other than themself. When the RCC says, "Tradition" it is at least honest enough to say, "As the RCC defines and understands." It's THEIR Tradition - not yours, not mine, not anyone else's. Aspects of it are ecumenical and universal, of course, but much of it is unique to one: the RCC. The same is true for Lutheran Tradition or Baptist Tradition or Methodist Tradition - just as it is for Catholic or Orthodox Tradition (again, unless you limit Tradition to the things virtually all of the 50,000 denominations and 2.2 Christians embrace).

So, when one says, "Tradition is the Rule/Canon for the evaluation of what I believe/teach/practice," what that is literally saying is, "My views are the Rule for my views. I look to ONE: the one I see in the mirror." It is not a rule at all - it simply is used to see if self agrees with self, and if others agree with me. It's moot as a tool for the evaluation of the correctness of teachings. ALL it CAN do is indicate if self agrees with self - revealing that self agrees with self but no other does (completely). What good does that do? How does that help us resolve our differences? How does that help us come to consensus? How does that help us to determine if self and others are correct?

A rule/canon/norma normans needs to be OUTSIDE and ABOVE all the parties involved for it to be of any usefulness. And the more objective, knowable, unalterable it is - the better. And the more it is embraced by all parties involved as reliable - the better.


Now, undeniably, the list of books called Scripture and the reliability of Scripture is faith and is drawn by MUTUAL consensus. But it's not ME. It is not YOU. It's not the view itself being used as the norma normans for ITSELF. That's way it is superior as a norma normans, and why it can be helpful. It's not just every individual person or denominmation looking in the mirror at its own individual self and saying: "Ah, I look just like me!" Let's say a friendly policeman stops you, noting that you were going 60 MPH in a 45 MPH zone. He points you to a big, square sign by the side of the road that says, "MAX 45 MPH." He's using the Rule of Law - pointing how the appliciable law, one that is NOT just his view, NOT just your view. Now, lets say you respond, "But I've been driving on this road since before you were born, Sunny, and it is MY view that people can drive 115 miles per hour on this road, thus the only relevant question is whether I was driving over 115 MPH." Then the policeman says, "Well, I'm a professional cop and it is MY view that the best speed limit is 30 MPH so you were going twice the speed limit!" Then the passenger in your car says, "Well, I've never driven over 50 on this road, so the speed limit is 50 - so my friend here was speeding, but only by 10 MPH." See, you want us to use everyone's Tradition (well, probably just your OWN). It doesn't get us very far, expect that EVERYONE ends up concluding that there is ONE who is correct - SELF, and everyone else is wrong. One might wonder why laws were invented and why the Rule of Law came. Why DID God write down the Ten Commandments and make THAT the norma normans for those areas of morality? Should I say, "It's MY tradition that stealing is just fine - thus stealing is just fine. I read the Ten Commendments through the "lens" (to use the Catholic expression) of MY Tradtion, to confirm with MY Tradition - so therefore, God is saying it's okay to steal cuz that's what MY Tradition says."

Something needs to be ABOVE the Tradition of the 50,000 denominations and 2.2 billion Christians. And the more objective (written would be ideal!), the more knowable (black and white words would be ideal), the more universally and ecumenically embraced (the acceptance of Scripture as the writings of God is one of the oldest, strongest matters of faith in all of Christianity) the better. Something to which the RCC and EO and LDS and LCMS and you and me are subject and accountable to. In civil societies, have a similar concept - the Rule of Law.

Now, if your only concern is knowing that the EO agrees with the EO - then look to EO Tradition. It's helpful for that. But IF you have any interest in whether you or me (or the LDS or RCC or WELS or Billy Graham or Mary Baker Eddy) is correct or not - you need something more than just a war of "I'm right so I'm right" "No, I'm right so I'm right." Which all we have when our individual Tradition is made the norma normans.

You open your post by describing what tradition is: 'Even as they delivered unto us, which were from the beginning eyewitnesses.'

NO ONE is suggesting that Tradition be tossed out! And certainly, there IS ecumenical Tradition. The Apostles and Nicene Creeds are examples of that. And I have a huge respect for the EO's seeming hesitation to embrace things since 1054 and without some affirmation beyond itself. That's something about the EO that I greatly admire.

But, realize, the LDS also says that their faith was "delivered unto us" by Apostles and eyewittnesses. As far as I know, EVERYONE believes that WHATEVER they believe is what Jesus and the Apostles taught - and that such was "delivered unto us." Was it? Ah, THAT'S the rub. You say that the DOGMA of the Infallibility of the Papacy was not "delivered unto us" and the RCC says it was. How do we know? How do we possibly go about an evaluation of this? The EO says it's right because the EO agrees with the EO's position, and the RC says it's right because the RC agress with the RC. Now, IMHO, it's the RC's dogma. It has the "burden of proof" (not that such can or should be absolute in matters of faith - but SOMETHING beyond I say it's dogmatic fact THUS it is). Just saying, RC Tradition says it's true" is correct, but is the EO convinced by that? Then why should the RC when the EO does the same thing? Or if it IS definative, why not accept all the LDS teaches, after all, all of it confirms to LDS Tradition, the LDS agrees with itself as firmly as the EO does. And they are just as sincere, just as truthful in their own opinions. To WHAT do we (collectively, all 2.2 billion of us) turn to the break this, "I'm right so when I say I'm right, I must be right - and everyone else is wrong because no one else agrees with me" thing? That is the issue before us. The WHAT is the embraced norma normans. Again, some will insist: "Everyone should turn to ME - what I think/feel/do which I call "Tradition" - MY Tradition."

This became an issue in the Reformation (AGAIN) because the RCC insisted that the RCC is right in all things because it's right in all things therefore it's right in all things. Luther pointed to Moses - Jesus and beyond, and to the ONLY norma normans they used: Scripture. Now, did he (or 99% of Protestants now) discount OUR COLLECTIVE CHRISTIAN Tradition? Absolutely not!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But he did reject using the unique views of Luther as the canon for the evaluation of the unique views of Luther, and he rejected the unique views of the RCC as the canon for the unique view of the RCC. The RCC rejected that, insisting that God in Scripture is required to agree with the views of the RCC, for the views of the RCC are the canon for the evaluation of the correctness of positions.

Paul said, "Now I praise you brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions, as I DELIVERED them to you." 1COR11.2

Good point. Paul said NOTHING about RCC or EO or LDS or WELS or UMC Tradition, or what any of US says.

Does this say, "if a person or denomination says something, whatever that is is the canon/rule for the evaluation of whether the self same is correct?" Nope.

Paul says, "For i delivered unto you first of all that which i recieved how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures."(1cor15.3).

... I fail to see how this Scripture (and your interesting application of Sola Scriptura in using it) supports your position.

In this case it is the interpretation of OT passages concerning the passion of Christ.

Here, we are on the same page. I too passionately embrace using Tradition (I mean ecumenical, not denominational) in HERMENEUTICS. But that's another subject for another day and thread, this one is about norming, not hermeneutics. In hermeneutics, most Protestants agree strongly that Tradition is absolutely essential. Different subject for another day (one in which there will be much agreement).





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Now, as I said previously, the scriptural references would take hours to compile and post; unless you want to step in as mom for 5, thtas beyond my time allotment.

Worship: Byzantine worship is the 'descendant' of the worship that Christ participated in during His time on earth. There are books available on this topic if you are truly interested.

From just Jesus alone, we have 50 examples of Jesus specifically saying, "Scripture says......" "It is written in Scirpture......" Etc. Typically, there is then a quote of such being uses normative.

Can you give me one example where Jesus mentions Byzantine worship? Much less, uses such normatively?

Just one will do.

Our Liturgy

Over 50 times, just Jesus used Scripture normatively. Can you give me one example where He notes that the liturgy of the EO is normative, one example where He used such as normatively. I'm not asking for ALL the examples where He said, "The Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church says....." I'm not asking you to give 50 examples from Jesus, or 100 from Scripture - one is all I'm requesting.

Chant:

Can you share just one example where Jesus uses the rule/canon/norma normans of a particular EO chant, noting such?

You said He did. I'm not asking for ALL the cases of such, just one. Where He specifically is using some EO chant, notes such, and is using such normatively.

Architecture:

Please share at least one example where Jesus says, "Church architecture in the Greek Orthodox Church says/teaches......" and then uses such normatively. You said He did. I'd just like at leasst one example. Thanks.






.

 

[Standing Up]

Again, I do not disagree with you. But the question revolved around the failure of consistency in the sola scriptura view; that is, all must be assessed by an outside 'objective' source, but the source used for assessment cannot be conclusively assessed (for authenticity or veracity) by any outside source.

Of course the same argument applies to Tradition.

The witnesses you mention, for example, belonged to a group that had no objective outside measure; all the witnesses belonged to the group. Thus, the group 'authenticated itself'. This is exactly CJosiah's criticism of the RC, LDS, etc.

The critique is selectively applied; the standard (sola scriptura) relies on a rule which is self-referentially accepted without any stated measure or rule. And the praxis of sola scriptura is not scripturally evidenced as being the sole "rule".

No, Christ and the eyewitnesses applied scripture and/or Christ. Jesus would say, according to scripture. Paul would say, according to scripture. James too.

That's the rule--it is written. If RCC wants to say the Pope is Supreme, they obviously may, but it has no bearing on you or me. Why? It is not written. This is so today and 500 years ago and some 2000 years ago.

 

[Standing Up]

What you write here has merit. The proof that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah had to be demonstrated to fellow jews by searching the scriptures to see if Jesus fullfilled those prophecies. -snip-

Thank you for the back-handed compliment and though you don't know it, you are supporting my position because this is the same reason the NT was written. Two witnesses--OT and NT--that Jesus is Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

Your post does not defend sola scripture but Apostolic Tradition. Your post is an apologetic AGAINST sola scripture, but you havent realized it.
You open your post by describing what tradition is: 'Even as they delivered unto us, which were from the beginning eyewitnesses.'

Correct, this is the definition of tradition, " receiving and delivering" down thru generations. The origin of these traditions are from eyewitnesses (the apostles) not books nor thru individuals who believe the Holy Spirit has lead them exclusively generations after the events.

Paul said, "Now I praise you brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions, as I DELIVERED them to you." 1COR11.2

Again you point out how Christ commanded preaching to all nations and the need for witnesses. This is apostolic tradition. Here you have revealed the origins of apostolic succession. If the apostles were meant to be scribes then eyewitnesses would not be needed.

Paul says, "For i delivered unto you first of all that which i recieved how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures."(1cor15.3).
Once again the terminology which defines tradition, to recieve something from a previous generation and safeguarded so one can delivered it to the next generation.
In this case it is the interpretation of OT passages concerning the passion of Christ.

Paul of course is using a Jewish teaching technique (delivered/received and received/delivered--if you want to understand about Passover), but it is the content of what he speaks that is important.

In both the OT and NT, there were first eyewitnesses, but God instructed them to write it down. That's the pattern for both. Why? Because anyone can come along and claim anything about everything.

In Pauls epistle to Timothy he further lays down the groundwork for apostolic succession:
"And the things which you heard from me among many witnesses the same commit to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also."(2tim2.2.) Paul further clarifies this point when he says "all scripture is given thru inspiration of God. It is not sola scripture he speaks of as is evidenced from 2 verses earlier but proper understanding of them, "But continue in the things which thou has learned and have been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them".2Tim3.14

-snip-

The point of what Paul is saying is that the faith is once delivered; the doctrine is done. It is not later revealed. Doctrine is not an acorn growing into a tree, like the Pope is Supreme. Apostolic succession is supposed to simply tell the next generation exactly what happened that we might believe and have life. It is not designed to introduce new concepts that eventually led to schism.

 

[jckstraw72]

The point of what Paul is saying is that the faith is once delivered; the doctrine is done. It is not later revealed. Doctrine is not an acorn growing into a tree, like the Pope is Supreme. Apostolic succession is supposed to simply tell the next generation exactly what happened that we might believe and have life. It is not designed to introduce new concepts that eventually led to schism.

you are exactly right about that.

 

[Standing Up]

The point of what Paul is saying is that the faith is once delivered; the doctrine is done. It is not later revealed. Doctrine is not an acorn growing into a tree, like the Pope is Supreme. Apostolic succession is supposed to simply tell the next generation exactly what happened that we might believe and have life. It is not designed to introduce new concepts that eventually led to schism.

you are exactly right about that.

Okay, so assuming others agree as well, what does that mean to this conversation? Why do you agree? Simply because it helps "your cause"? Or are you agreeing with the concept "it is written"?

Here's CJ: "From just Jesus alone, we have 50 examples of Jesus specifically saying, "Scripture says......" "It is written in Scirpture......" Etc. Typically, there is then a quote of such being uses normative.

Can you give me one example where Jesus mentions Byzantine worship? Much less, uses such normatively?

Just one will do."

That's one example (I suppose) of something introduced later. Right? It's not written, else he wouldn't keep asking for an example because no one can provide the rule--"it is written" as God instructed eyewitnesses of the OT and NT.

 

[Standing Up]

"Something needs to be ABOVE the Tradition of the 50,000 denominations and 2.2 billion Christians. And the more objective (written would be ideal!), the more knowable (black and white words would be ideal), the more universally and ecumenically embraced (the acceptance of Scripture as the writings of God is one of the oldest, strongest matters of faith in all of Christianity) the better. Something to which the RCC and EO and LDS and LCMS and you and me are subject and accountable to. In civil societies, have a similar concept - the Rule of Law. "

I suppose this is what CJs trying to get to with these various conversations with both RCC and EO.

The problem with ever achieving unity as Christ prayed in John 17 is the stuff that comes after "it is written" and with those who think "faith once delivered" wasn't. As well with those who don't believe "it is written", as in there will be apostasy (2 Thes. 2:3); it's always everyone else and never me.

Tradition and Succession are important and were used at one time to decisively argue against heresy. Today, however, those tools are weapons used against us.

But what remains? God called witnesses and instructed them to write it down. What remains are Two--the OT and NT.

 

[jckstraw72]

"Something needs to be ABOVE the Tradition of the 50,000 denominations and 2.2 billion Christians. And the more objective (written would be ideal!), the more knowable (black and white words would be ideal), the more universally and ecumenically embraced (the acceptance of Scripture as the writings of God is one of the oldest, strongest matters of faith in all of Christianity) the better. Something to which the RCC and EO and LDS and LCMS and you and me are subject and accountable to. In civil societies, have a similar concept - the Rule of Law. "

I suppose this is what CJs trying to get to with these various conversations with both RCC and EO.

The problem with ever achieving unity as Christ prayed in John 17 is the stuff that comes after "it is written" and with those who think "faith once delivered" wasn't. As well with those who don't believe "it is written", as in there will be apostasy (2 Thes. 2:3); it's always everyone else and never me.

Tradition and Succession are important and were used at one time to decisively argue against heresy. Today, however, those tools are weapons used against us.

But what remains? God called witnesses and instructed them to write it down. What remains are Two--the OT and NT.

Scripture tells us that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. if it ever gets confused about what is truth then that Scripture becomes untrue, so we know that the Church will always preserve the truth unblemished. so besides the OT and NT remaining, there remains the Church to which the OT and NT belong.

 

[Standing Up]

Scripture tells us that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. if it ever gets confused about what is truth then that Scripture becomes untrue, so we know that the Church will always preserve the truth unblemished. so besides the OT and NT remaining, there remains the Church to which the OT and NT belong.

Well, you didn't answer my comments, but brought up something else, which in fact supports what I've said. Paul prefaces his comments about the Church thusly:

These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

"It is written" is still the rule in the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. The whole chapter is about the elders--written down so there is no mistake. As such, it is implying that those who add or subtract thereto have some problems.

As I said, some are in the camp not believing "it is written" that there will be apostasy (2 Thes. 2:3)--it is always someone else's Church and not my Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by jckstraw72 Scripture tells us that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. if it ever gets confused about what is truth then that Scripture becomes untrue, so we know that the Church will always preserve the truth unblemished. so besides the OT and NT remaining, there remains the Church to which the OT and NT belong.

I would agree the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth.
But honestly jckstraw, do not you and the CC view that great schism as a type of "confusion" that caused those 2 to split?

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

 

[buzuxi02]

I would agree the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth.
But honestly jckstraw, do not you and the CC view that great schism as a type of "confusion" that caused those 2 to split?

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

Lamb there can be no sections in the Body of Christ. There is only a falling away. The gates of hades shall not prevail against her, says the scripture. But scripture also says that not a bone of Him was broken. The body of Christ was not fragmented, his bones not broken into a thousand different pieces. Do you see the allegory? Christ is the head and the Church his body where not a piece of him broken or splintered. it is one and visible. Do you see how denominationalism divides the body and rips it assunder thus Christ cannot view the sects as his body.

Rome fell away and the result of its falling away was protestantism. Protestantism is nothing but daughters and grand daughters and great grandaughters of Rome created 500 years after the schism. And amongst the protestants they have bore further illegitimate children as well, such as the mormons and unitarians and jehovahs witness and 7th day adventists. Do you see what happens when one departs from scripture and the Church of the Fathers? When they cast aside the faith once handed to all from the beginning? How do we decipher what was from the beginning? Simply put it to the test of universality antiquity and consent.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Lamb there can be no sections in the Body of Christ. There is only a falling away. The gates of hades shall not prevail against her, says the scripture. But scripture also says that not a bone of Him was broken. The body of Christ was not fragmented, his bones not broken into a thousand different pieces. Do you see the allegory? Christ is the head and the Church his body where not a piece of him broken or splintered. it is one and visible. Do you see how denominationalism divides the body and rips it assunder thus Christ cannot view the sects as his body.

Rome fell away and the result of its falling away was protestantism. Protestantism is nothing but daughters and grand daughters and great grandaughters of Rome created 500 years after the schism. And amongst the protestants they have bore further illegitimate children as well, such as the mormons and unitarians and jehovahs witness and 7th day adventists. Do you see what happens when one departs from scripture and the Church of the Fathers? When they cast aside the faith once handed to all from the beginning? How do we decipher what was from the beginning? Simply put it to the test of universality antiquity and consent.

Greetings and thank you.
So the Protestants can now blame Rome for Protestism coming into being? Sounds a little like what you are saying.

 

[buzuxi02]

Greetings and thank you.
So the Protestants can now blame Rome for Protestism coming into being? Sounds a little like what you are saying.

Well you cant blame the Eastern Orthodox church or the Coptic Church or the Assyrian Church of the East. After all both Rome and the offshoot sects are all western forms of christianity. Although we realize they were also cultural shifts taking place in western Europe at that time (HMM Judging from CJ'S posts i guess he hasnt heard of these other ancient christian churches all of whom reject sola scripture as well, he hasnt singled them out or even mentioned them).

 

[Blackknight]

These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

I think you're stretching a little. Of course he wrote to them, they didn't exactly have phones or e-mail back then.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Scripture tells us that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.

Yes, exactly.

And a pillar upholds - not invents.
And it says THE CHURCH is, not each individual person or denomination. It doesn't say the The Greek Orthodox Church is the Rule for the evaluation of teachings, it doesn't say the each one's views (Tradition) is the rule for the evaluation of the self same.

CHRISTIANS are to uphold the truth - which seems to suggest that truth matters, and thus that teachings are accountable. Now, the question would be: to WHAT?

If you insist (as the RCC and LDS do) that what all teach (including self) is accountable to the views of self, then all we have is a mirror of self and it's moot in terms of norming, the ONLY thing such CAN do is indicate if self agrees with self (and self is pretty likely to do so!) and if others entirely agree with self (and that's pretty unlikely). But that has no relevance whatsoever to correctness unless one just claims that there is ONE incapable to being wrong (self alone - of course) in which case the entire issue of norming is moot anyway: everyone is right if they claim they are.


See, the RCC and LDS (and maybe EO) like to quote this verse, but they put the proper name of their specific denomination in front of the word "church" (usually capitolizing "church" as well) so that ITSELF becomes the ground of faith. It's still moot to the issue of norming, of course, but it amazes me how some don't seem to notice that the verse says NOTHING about ANY denomination and NOTHING about the issue of norming, much less what is best as the canon/rule in the practice of such.

, so we know that the Church will always preserve the truth unblemished

If "church" here refers to a denomination, then which? The LDS says it's the LDS. The RCC says it's the RCC. I suspect the EO says it's the EO. But actually, it doesn't say ANY denomination.

Where does the Bible say that ANY denomination will be "preserve the truth unblemished?" Where does it say that Christians will "preserve the truth unblemished?" I suppose ANYONE or ANYTHING (with sufficient ego) can claim for self alone that self alone cannot err - although I only know of one that does (the RCC; the LDS once did but dropped that some years ago). "I'm right so I'm right when I say I'm right" is the rubric. Does such have any relevance to being right? It does to having an enormous opinion of self, but does it to being correct?






.

 

[Standing Up]

I think you're stretching a little. Of course he wrote to them, they didn't exactly have phones or e-mail back then.

But the point is clearly made. The rule is "it is written".

 

[buzuxi02]

The term denomination is a western manmade innovation. The tradition of the protestants along with the branch theory and the invisible church militant. Of course the NT doesnt speak of denominations since they did not exist, nor can they. The term "denomination" is 500 years old and from your very own post acknowledge that the scripture does not recognize this innovation. The ekklesia is one as the scripture says and the gates of hades shall not prevail against her. What you call denominations the bible recognizes as heretical vagante groups. These groups are named after the heresiarch who found them. Such as the apostate Nicholas who adherents are refered to as Nicolatians. Arians for Arius, Nestorians after Nestorius and Lutherans after Martin Luther.

Now if you want to know what church is the church of the NT. Then go to Thessalonica in Greece and visit the Thessalonian church, go to Corinth and visit the corinthian church, go to damscus and to antioch. Visit the church on the street called straight as the book of Acts describes. That address is an Orthodox church. Those churches are still there, visit them. Visit the ruins of the 7 churches of Revelation in Turkey. Read how the living communities of the 7 churches of Revelation came to an abrupt end in September 1922 when Bishop Chrysostomos was brutally martyred by muslim fanatics and the treaty of Luasane called for a population swap of the remaining christians of Smyrna with the muslims of Greece. Visit Patmos island in Greece and see the cave-church where John the evangelist wrote the Apocalypse. And of course visit Jerusalem and the indigenous christian population where the government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan all recognize the bishop of the Orthodox church of Jerusalem as the successor of James brother of the Lord and custodian of the christian sites of Palestine.

 

[Standing Up]

Well you cant blame the Eastern Orthodox church or the Coptic Church or the Assyrian Church of the East. After all both Rome and the offshoot sects are all western forms of christianity. Although we realize they were also cultural shifts taking place in western Europe at that time (HMM Judging from CJ'S posts i guess he hasnt heard of these other ancient christian churches all of whom reject sola scripture as well, he hasnt singled them out or even mentioned them).

As long as you brought it up, there was another hardly-known split before the first well-known one (Assyrian Church of the East c434). All the Churches now known came out/departed from that first split as they excommunicated (325-Nice) and declared heretical (341-Antioch) the successors to Christ and the Apostles, the Quartodecimans.

Except for them, they all, as you say, rejected "it is written" to set up shop as they saw fit.

 

[Standing Up]

Yes, exactly.

And a pillar upholds - not invents.
And it says THE CHURCH is, not each individual person or denomination. It doesn't say the The Greek Orthodox Church is the Rule for the evaluation of teachings, it doesn't say the each one's views (Tradition) is the rule for the evaluation of the self same. -snip-
.

The double-standard in this conversation is unlike a pillar is it not?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.



.


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:

I've listened to a few podcasts and read a few tracts from Orthodox converts who offer refutation of Sola Scriptura ("SS"). I recently listened to a 3-part series by Dcn. Michael Hyatt on "Intersection of East and West." While well spoken and well presented, he unfortunately offered arguments that sailed very wide of their intended mark. The "sola scriptura" held by most "protestants" today is far removed from what the Reformers themselves held to, and almost all of the arguments are directed at this flimsy substitute. So I offer just a few arguments that shouldn't be used because they're irrelevant to the discussion. I hope this will help us to better understand each other's views.
​

1. Jn. 21:25 says "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Answer: Yep, it sure does. And??? SS makes no claim that every word ever spoken by Jesus was recorded in Scripture. It only claims what John himself said a few chapters earlier (20:30-31) "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." SS teaches that all things necessary for belief unto salvation, and for holy living, are contained in Scripture--in fact are contained in John's gospel, which is "this book" to which he refers--other words and deeds are elsewhere in Scripture itself. Also note that to use this argument is to assume a burden of proof--where in Holy Tradition are the rest of Jesus' words and deeds recorded?

2. 2 Thess. says "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." and "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." Answer: Yep, it sure does. And??? SS does not claim that only what is written in ink carries authority. Tradition is real and necessary and authoritative insofar as it accords with Scripture, which is by everyone's mutual agreement the only surviving source of God-breathed revelation available to the church. Again these arguments assume a burden of proof: can it be demonstrated conclusively that these traditions, to which Paul refers, differ in content or substance from what was eventually recorded in Scripture? Can we confirm that it contained doctrine necessary for salvation not found in Scripture? As SS does not deny the authority or necessity of tradition, this argument misses the mark.

3. Acts says that the Eunich needed Stephen to explain Scripture to him. Answer: Yep, it sure does. And??? SS does not deny the need for exposition of Scripture by faithful and learned teachers, nor the need for a structured clergy that protects the church against false teachers. But those true teachers must refute heretics from a right use of Scripture.

4. Paul's mention in 2 Tim. of "all Scripture" being inspired and profitable limits "Scripture" to just the O.T. Answer: no, it doesn't. "Scripture" is a category--all that is God-breathed is part of this category, whether written centuries before Paul, or decades later. The same goes for the Bereans "searching the Scriptures." Yes they searched the O.T. but this in no way means that S.S. limits itself to only those books. To use this argument is to fall into a categorical error.

5. There was no canon of Scripture until the 3rd or 4th century so Protestant's can't know which books to use. Answer: tougher to refute but not if "canon" is understood rightly. The collected works of Shakespeare contain works by that author, and they are his works because he wrote them, not because they were bound up with a table of contents. The church gradually recognized those books that are canonical but did not create the canon. If one holds this argument, does one not then conclude that nobody could have any confidence in which books were inspired, beginning with Genesis all the way down to the 3rd Century? How could a Jew have known that Isaiah was canonical?

6. SS produces disunity and disagreement--if it were so clear, why don't all Protestants agree? Answer: if Holy Tradition were so clear, why don't all Orthodox agree on both Scripture and Tradition? There is unity within diversity, is there not? Unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all things. It is not S.S. that produces division but our propensity to err and our sinful pride in drawing lines where they shouldn't be drawn. This befalls every Christian body. I believe that to use this argument is to hold to a double standard.


​

Some Comments:

I recently listened to a 3-part series by Dcn. Michael Hyatt on "Intersection of East and West." While well spoken and well presented, he unfortunately offered arguments that sailed very wide of their intended mark. The "sola scriptura" [assumed] is far removed from what the Reformers themselves held to, and almost all of the arguments are directed at this flimsy substitute.
​

I find this OFTEN the case. Sola Scriptura, of course, is simply the embrace of God's written Scripture as the Rule/Canon/"norma normans" for the evaluation of teachings. All of the criticisms of "Sola Scriptura" are usually directed to things that aren't even Sola Scriptura but strawmen.

I'm not 100% sure it's ALWAYS intentional. When Protestants speak of the issue of norming, they at times ALSO speak of issues of hermeneutics, Tradition and a host of OTHER topics. Sadly, at times, those unfamiliar with the praxis can wrongly conclude that ALL these things are Sola Scriptura.

1. Jn. 21:25 says "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
​

Yes, this verse has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion and therefore with Sola Scriptura. UNLESS one is arguing that some NONCANONICAL book which DOES confirm their dogma SHOULD be regarded as Scripture equal to all the rest (and as far as I know, only the LDS takes this view), then the point is entirely, completely moot.

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.

2 Thess. says "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." and "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." [/quote]

Again, you are correct in noting that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the praxis of Sola Scriptura. It's yet another diversion and/or strawman....

Yes, Paul, Timothy and Silas evidently taught some things. Does that mean that what a Denomination teaches (RCC, LDS, LCMS, EO, UMC, etc.) is to be regarded as equal in normative function with God's Scripture according to this verse?

And note, it says "FROM US..." Not, "from the Bishops of the RCC or LDS."

And, of course, Sola Scriptura says NOTHING about Tradition. Positively or negatively or at all. Now, I suppose embracing Scripture ALONE as the norma normans DOES mean that therefore one's own view cannot be the final Rule for the evaluation of the self-same (creating a perfect circle of self-authentication) but the praxis itself says nothing to that. It simply suggests that ALL views (whether those of self or those of others) are subject to the SAME Canon (and yes, that could not be itself).

Acts says that the Eunich needed Stephen to explain Scripture to him. Answer: Yep, it sure does. And??? SS does not deny the need for exposition of Scripture by faithful and learned teachers, nor the need for a structured clergy that protects the church against false teachers. But those true teachers must refute heretics from a right use of Scripture.
​

Right. To listen to some critics, you'd think that there's no Baptist preachers or teachers, no Baptist Sunday Schools, cuz all Protestants are opposed to teaching....

Sola Scriptura has NOTHING TO DO with the importance of the activity of teaching. It does have to do with BY WHAT is a teaching to be evaluated.

5. There was no canon of Scripture until the 3rd or 4th century so Protestant's can't know which books to use. Answer: tougher to refute but not if "canon" is understood rightly. The collected works of Shakespeare contain works by that author, and they are his works because he wrote them, not because they were bound up with a table of contents. The church gradually recognized those books that are canonical but did not create the canon. If one holds this argument, does one not then conclude that nobody could have any confidence in which books were inspired, beginning with Genesis all the way down to the 3rd Century? How could a Jew have known that Isaiah was canonical?
​

Right.

And again, the list of books is not the praxis of Sola Scriptura. The praxis was just as valid when Scripture was just two stone tablets that Moses had brought down from the mountain. To argue that it cannot serve as a Canon because we don't know if it's FINISHED would be the same as telling a policeman who has pulled you over for speeding that he's moot because we don't know if the speed limit will someday be changed. And it's all moot anyway, there's only one denomination (the LDS) that is arguing that additional books that DO support thier unique dogmas is to be added to the Canon.

And JESUS Himself refered to Scripture (as He used Sola Scriptura). All these 300 years before the Council of Hippo and over 1500 years before the Council of Trent. Was He lying to call it Scripture when He did? To use such as normative?

The whole argument is irrelevant and moot - just a diversion from the point.

6. SS produces disunity and disagreement--if it were so clear, why don't all Protestants agree? Answer: if Holy Tradition were so clear, why don't all Orthodox agree on both Scripture and Tradition? There is unity within diversity, is there not? Unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all things. It is not S.S. that produces division but our propensity to err and our sinful pride in drawing lines where they shouldn't be drawn. This befalls every Christian body. I believe that to use this argument is to hold to a double standard.
​

Another excellent point....

Actually, there are 3 denominations known to me that solidly reject Sola Scriptura in favor of the norma normans of "The Three-Legged-Stool" - the RC, EO and LDS. Do they agree in all matters with each other? With ANY other than self? Where is the evidence that "The Three Legged Stool" leads to more agreement? Unless one simply defines the "stool" as WHATEVER self alone thinks - then, yes, self IS likely to agree with self. So what? I typically agree with myself, does that make me correct? If not, then why does it make the RCC or LDS correct?

Yes, I realize that the RCC alone currently agrees with the RCC alone in all matters that the RCC alone currently thinks there should be agreement upon. Can't the same be said for the other 49.999 denominations that Catholics insist exist? So what?



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 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]