EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

[Standing Up]

Interesting question, although phrased differently than I would prefer:
We hold fast to what we have received. It is not so much that RC or Protestant are wrong, and then us, correct, but it is much more about what we have received. RC will acknowledge that in their Dogma is accreted understanding of ancient tradition- a restatement perhaps, in the vein of the Nicene Creed. Such is permissible, but through concilliar action of the whole Church, not by one Episcopate.

We have not held a council which has been deemed ecumenical since the schism. That Rome has says much about her view unto self.

So you're saying O holds fast to what was received, but RCC doesn't (since they've had more councils)?

Nothings changed for you in 1000 years, but it has for RCC.

Each group will agree that they've received something. But how to iron out the wrinkles? What plumb line will one use? RCC, I suppose, simply says, quoting longer version of Ignatius, the bishop can do whatever he wants/ is above all things. What do you use?

 

[racer]

I hate to sound offensive but our very name means "right worship." The church has been battling heresies for centuries and we have always maintained that we are the pillar of truth. There are right ways to do things and wrong ways to do things. How do we know which is which? Holy Tradition.

Your church named itself. So, again, I will quote jckstraw, "you can call yourself a teapot, but that doesn't make you one."

Part of being an Orthodox Christian is humbling your own ego.

And, rightly so. This should be the case for all Christians. Sadly, it is not.

 

[racer]

For a person to question his own ability to properly discern Scripture, he must then question his faith in God , , , , ,

 

[Thekla]

For a person to question his own ability to properly discern Scripture, he must then question his faith in God , , , , ,

Or, faith in God leads one to know his own insufficiency.

As Isaiah, in the presence of holiness came to know deeply his own uncleanness.

The battle against oneself is life-long and hard. Our lens is often distorted; accustomed to this we often assume it is normal.

 

[racer]

New age argle bargle.
"Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of your faith."

Hmmmm? Unintelligible mumbo-jumbo!

That is not 'sola scriptura.' It is canon, or measure. That is what canonical scripture is the "plumb line."

No, your assertion is according to “your” distorted version of Sola Scriptura. How is it you guys continue to misrepresent this concept? You are repeatedly corrected, yet refuse to accept a true definition from us. This is only a problem for those faiths which adhere to some types of Holy Tradition which can not be upheld or affirmed by Scripture.

Sola Scriptura means scripture alone as the guide to truth- but it scripture and reasoning or scripture and "leading of the spirit" or scripture and the teaching of the Church, or your church, or whatever. There is no such thing as scripture without a lens through which it is viewed.

That brilliant Protestant scholars cannot acknowledge this defies logic and integrity.

As I pointed out above, you refuse to acknowledge the true meaning of SS, choosing instead to continue misrepresenting its meaning to be something that you can credibly argue against and in your own mind, even disprove. Why insist on wasting time doing this?

 

[racer]

Or, faith in God leads one to know his own insufficiency.

How is this so? If you don't believe your faith enables you to properly discern Scripture, then how does faith lead you to know anything at all? You are limiting the power of faith and the Power of God. Do you truly believe that "faith in God" enables you to recognize your insufficiency and stops there and does not enable you to understand His written word?

As Isaiah, in the presence of holiness came to know deeply his own uncleanness.

The battle against oneself is life-long and hard. Our lens is often distorted; accustomed to this we often assume it is normal.

Bottom line: ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE THROUGH FAITH IN GOD!!!!! ANYTHING MEANS ANYTHING.

Try reading the NEW Testament.

So, if you doubt your ability to discern His words to you, the you probably are incapable of personal discernment.

 

[Kristos]

Hmmmm?

No, your assertion is according to “your” distorted version of Sola Scriptura. How is it you guys continue to misrepresent this concept? You are repeatedly corrected, yet refuse to accept a true definition from us. This is only a problem for those faiths which adhere to some types of Holy Tradition which can not be upheld or affirmed by Scripture.

As I pointed out above, you refuse to acknowledge the true meaning of SS, choosing instead to continue misrepresenting its meaning to be something that you can credibly argue against and in your own mind, even disprove. Why insist on wasting time doing this?

Maybe I missed it.

This thread started with a definition of SS which I think was from John Calvin (I'm not sure because I did not post the definition, rather I asked for it). Then I addressed some issues I saw with the given definition but was immediately told that SS said not such thing and then was given another definition that was some sort of an amalgamation from various sources including LCMS. Then I went to the LCMS website (because it used in the personal definition) and quoted what they have posted concerning SS in full and complete, but then I was corrected again because only the LCMS believed this and not other Protestants or even other Lutherans. Then I gave up...

So what is your definition, and who accepts it as the correct and complete definition of SS? Why don't you accept the definition of John Calvin? Why don't you accept the definition of the LCMS?

 

[Blackknight]

That's a good question too. Whose definition do we use? Is the definition listed in scripture?

Hmmm....

 

[Thekla]

How is this so? If you don't believe your faith enables you to properly discern Scripture, then how does faith lead you to know anything at all? You are limiting the power of faith and the Power of God. Do you truly believe that "faith in God" enables you to recognize your insufficiency and stops there and does not enable you to understand His written word?

Of course faith does; but, God does not work against our will. Faith will grow, God will give to the extent that we permit. Human pride, the distortions we carry from the fall, can lead us to assume that what is from our own distorted heart is from God.

Bottom line: ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE THROUGH FAITH IN GOD!!!!! ANYTHING MEANS ANYTHING.

Try reading the NEW Testament.

Anything is possible with God, where anything is in accord with the will of God.

I read the New Testament (and the Psalms) daily. Today, in Mark, Christ did not perform miracles among those who disbelieved. This was not from a lack of power in Christ, but because God does not abrogate our choice.

It is a human tendency to let God in in small ways, to only open a wee crack in the heart at a time. To say, as it were, "Well, I'll let God heal me a little bit here, or a little bit there." There are few of us who truly permit in our heart of hearts, like Mary did, "Take all of me, and do as You will."

But we like to think we have. Thus, we are healed in the small way that we permit, and think the whole of us is healed. We think we are sufficient, yet what we see we see still through our distortion. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Christ is Saviour; saviour means - among other things, to confer wholeness.

So, if you doubt your ability to discern His words to you, the you probably are incapable of personal discernment.

And this challenge is one to be met every day, moment by moment. Repentance is to be a "state of being". Temptations do not cease until all is finished. I know that I am still distorted; I know that only Christ is wholeness.

 

[racer]

Maybe I missed it.

This thread started with a definition of SS which I think was from John Calvin (I'm not sure because I did not post the definition, rather I asked for it). Then I addressed some issues I saw with the given definition but was immediately told that SS said not such thing and then was given another definition that was some sort of an amalgamation from various sources including LCMS. Then I went to the LCMS website (because it used in the personal definition) and quoted what they have posted concerning SS in full and complete, but then I was corrected again because only the LCMS believed this and not other Protestants or even other Lutherans. Then I gave up...

So what is your definition, and who accepts it as the correct and complete definition of SS? Why don't you accept the definition of John Calvin? Why don't you accept the definition of the LCMS?

Never said the term wasn't correctly defined. I simply pointed out even though it is, certain people, like yourself, continue to distort it.

I know Josiah, and I've read posts and counter-posts. He did address your "concerns." You simply do not want to acknowledge the truth as it is--simple and strait forward.

Let me ask you something, let's say I approach ten or fifteen EOs or RCs, and ask them to explain to me in their words what the Real Presence is, or Papal Infallibility . . . do you assert that all of these people will explain/define these dogmas/doctrines exactly the same?

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

Well back to the OP for me. I read about 90% of this thread and I have a question that Im not sure was asked or answered. If I missed it I apologize.

Josiah, you said...

Sola Scriptura, of course, is simply the embrace of God's written Scripture as the Rule/Canon/"norma normans" for the evaluation of teachings.

Does this mean for you that Scripture is the sole source and sole norm for our faith?

Would you allow for sources of theology other than Scripture?

If it is agreed that the Scriptures are the norm, guide, rule, canon and so forth of our faith, who's understanding and interpretation and authority tells us what the rule or norm or canon is to mean, rightly.

Is there no revelation after the writing of the Scriptures to help guide and govern the rule and norm of our faith, that is the Scriptures?

Maybe you have answered all this and its nothing new. In that case, I apologize.


JTM

 

[racer]

Of course faith does; but, God does not work against our will. Faith will grow, God will give to the extent that we permit. Human pride, the distortions we carry from the fall, can lead us to assume that what is from our own distorted heart is from God.




Anything is possible with God, where anything is in accord with the will of God.

I read the New Testament (and the Psalms) daily. Today, in Mark, Christ did not perform miracles among those who disbelieved. This was not from a lack of power in Christ, but because God does not abrogate our choice.

It is a human tendency to let God in in small ways, to only open a wee crack in the heart at a time. To say, as it were, "Well, I'll let God heal me a little bit here, or a little bit there." There are few of us who truly permit in our heart of hearts, like Mary did, "Take all of me, and do as You will."

But we like to think we have. Thus, we are healed in the small way that we permit, and think the whole of us is healed. We think we are sufficient, yet what we see we see still through our distortion. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Christ is Saviour; saviour means - among other things, to confer wholeness.



And this challenge is one to be met every day, moment by moment. Repentance is to be a "state of being". Temptations do not cease until all is finished. I know that I am still distorted; I know that only Christ is wholeness.

Thanks for the response, but I don't see that you actually answered my questions . . . .

Do you think that individual christian discernment is not in accordance with God's will?

 

[Thekla]

Thanks for the response, but I don't see that you actually answered my questions . . . .

Do you think that individual christian discernment is not in accordance with God's will?

No, I think it is "not the right question" ...

It is not a limitation of the will or power or energy of God.
It is a human failure, born of the distortion brought on by the fall.

God will not do what we do not permit. Discernment is not our own ability, but God working in us. Discernment is our listening to Him. This occurs in the heart. If the heart is not fully given over to God, and made whole, our "discernment" will be partial or glimpses. We tend, because of human pride, to mistake the glimpses for the wholeness. We tend, because of human pride, to mistake the distorted part of our heart as equally the 'glimpses'.

 

[Standing Up]

Well back to the OP for me. I read about 90% of this thread and I have a question that Im not sure was asked or answered. If I missed it I apologize.

Josiah, you said...




Does this mean for you that Scripture is the sole source and sole norm for our faith?

Yes I try this.

Would you allow for sources of theology other than Scripture?

There's clearly Christians throughout history. What is said/taught without some final plumbline is simply opinion, however Spirit-filled one is. There's three flocks--RCC, O, and P. Each separated by what? What is the only thing that will accurately reconcile them?

If it is agreed that the Scriptures are the norm, guide, rule, canon and so forth of our faith, who's understanding and interpretation and authority tells us what the rule or norm or canon is to mean, rightly.

People keep bringing this up as if it is a problem. I don't believe that it is. Baptism of infants, yes or no, as an example; clearly scripture answers the question.

At the same time, folks haven't any awareness of this type of example where Tradition has already trumpted Scripture:

"For it was not without design that the prophet Moses, when Hur and Aaron upheld his hands, remained in this form until evening. For indeed the Lord remained upon the tree almost until evening, and they buried Him at eventide; then on the third day He rose again."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.xli.html (chapter XCVII, (97), Dialogue with Trypho)

"It was not without design" he says and then he CHANGES the design!!! and folks have gone along for some 1900 years. But again, if you believe Scripture, this falling away was foretold. And the three flocks feed from Tradition (even though some deny it).

Is there no revelation after the writing of the Scriptures to help guide and govern the rule and norm of our faith, that is the Scriptures?

No. The faith was once delivered. They followed the apostle's doctrine. Sons of Thunder--first and last apostles to die. Revelation is over.

Maybe you have answered all this and its nothing new. In that case, I apologize.


JTM

Peace

 

[Thekla]

The effects of revelation are ongoing.

The failure to embrace the fullness of revelation are ongoing, too.

These are the "two sides" of human history.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The effects of revelation are ongoing.

The failure to embrace the fullness of revelation are ongoing, too.

These are the "two sides" of human history.

In fact, we are discussing that on this thread. Here is one post where I used both the NC book of Revelation and the OC book of Ezra concering the OC and NC Priesthood

http://www.christianforums.com/t7401157/#post52946383

 

[racer]

No, I think it is "not the right question" ...

So, now, those who are not either EO or RC not only don't have the right answers, but we don't even know what questions we are asking?

It is not a limitation of the will or power or energy of God.
It is a human failure, born of the distortion brought on by the fall.

Which is precisely the argument I've I've made all along. Just because God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are doing His part everday, does not mean that we (Christians) are doing our parts efficiently or at all. That, however, does not, negate the feasibility and truth of Sola Scriptura. Nowhere, that I've found, does it say find an Orthodox Church or a Roman Catholic Church and have a seat in the pews and believe what they feed you.

The only way, Thekla, that you can possibly believe (or know) that your Church is the right church is for "you" to personally discern the meaning of Scripture. If you don't do this, then you can't be positive that your church is "the" right church.

God will not do what we do not permit. Discernment is not our own ability, but God working in us. Discernment is our listening to Him.

And Sola Scripturists agree wholeheartedly. We trust that what we discern from Scripture is revealed to us by God, through the Holy Spirit residing within us.

This occurs in the heart.

Unless I'm going senile (which is entirely possible) I think I already said that.

If the heart is not fully given over to God, and made whole, our "discernment" will be partial or glimpses. We tend, because of human pride, to mistake the glimpses for the wholeness. We tend, because of human pride, to mistake the distorted part of our heart as equally the 'glimpses'.

And membership to any particular church/denomination is not what determines this. It is our faith in God the genuineness of it, the degree of it . . . those things determine level of discernment--IMO.

 

[Kristos]

Never said the term wasn't correctly defined. I simply pointed out even though it is, certain people, like yourself, continue to distort it.

I know Josiah, and I've read posts and counter-posts. He did address your "concerns." You simply do not want to acknowledge the truth as it is--simple and strait forward.

Let me ask you something, let's say I approach ten or fifteen EOs or RCs, and ask them to explain to me in their words what the Real Presence is, or Papal Infallibility . . . do you assert that all of these people will explain/define these dogmas/doctrines exactly the same?

They might not explain them exactly the same, because they would use their own words, but I count on them to be in agreement on the sustianance. Here we do not have that. John Calvin's definition, which was given at the begining stated that everything one needs is contained WHOLLY in Scripture. Then CJ denied that SS says any such thing and provided his own personal version, which I can't seem to find anywhere else. He a portion of his version from the LCMS, but left out what he didn't agree with. I took the LCMS version in whole, but not many people agree with that either. So, I ask again, what is your version? Why don't you agree with Calvin's version? Why don't you agree with the LCMS version?

I don't see how I can be distorting something when I'm trying to use the documented versions of SS - not what he said or she said.

 

[racer]

They might not explain them exactly the same, because they would use their own words, but I count on them to be in agreement on the sustianance.

Exactly. Then, there are also circumstances when--believe it or not RCs/EOs (individuals) do not possess a correct understanding of these doctrines themselves. For instance, I had a "cradle Catholic" tell me that the Real Presence was symbolic.

So, the fact that no two people do not describe something the same way, or even the fact that some people are just wrong does not negate truth or credibility of Orthodox or Catholic teachings (in the minds of those believers). It is the same way with Sola Scriptura. Some people are just not able to properly articulate it and some people just possess a distorted view of it. That does not negate or disprove the validity of it.

Here we do not have that. John Calvin's definition, which was given at the begining stated that everything one needs is contained WHOLLY in Scripture. Then CJ denied that SS says any such thing and provided his own personal version, which I can't seem to find anywhere else. He a portion of his version from the LCMS, but left out what he didn't agree with. I took the LCMS version in whole, but not many people agree with that either. So, I ask again, what is your version? Why don't you agree with Calvin's version? Why don't you agree with the LCMS version?

Has any other SS proponent came to this thread and disputed CJ's assertion? If no one has come out and disagreed why do you assume that there is no consensus on the matter? Are we all suppose to chime in and say, "Yeah! What CJ said . . ?)

I don't see how I can be distorting something when I'm trying to use the documented versions of SS - not what he said or she said.

Can you direct me to the post where you pointed out the discrepencies or fallacies with CJ's OP? I'd like to know what your objection is?

 

[Thekla]

So, now, those who are not either EO or RC not only don't have the right answers, but we don't even know what questions we are asking?

No, it seemed the emphasis was out of skew with what I had described, thus I was reorienting the question to help my failed response be more understandable when I was redescribing what I said.

Which is precisely the argument I've I've made all along. Just because God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are doing His part everday, does not mean that we (Christians) are doing our parts efficiently or at all. That, however, does not, negate the feasibility and truth of Sola Scriptura. Nowhere, that I've found, does it say find an Orthodox Church or a Roman Catholic Church and have a seat in the pews and believe what they feed you.

The failure of humans is to mistake the part for the whole, or the fallen (broken) self, or a part of the broken self (healed or unhealed) for what we should be (whole). Sola scriptura continues to view through "pieces" (and instututionalizes looking through and at pieces)and also treats a part of scripture as the whole of scripture. This is a distortion of scripture. It also treats scripture as a "whole" by claiming that scripture, not Christ, is the norm. The norm is Christ, not scripture about Christ.

Per Josiah's responses, it seems that sola scriptura takes all of the actions of Christ shown in scripture, and norms for only one of the actions of Christ: His referencing scripture. This is inconsistent. If scripture is the norm, then why is only one thing that Christ does in scripture "the norm" ?

The only way, Thekla, that you can possibly believe (or know) that your Church is the right church is for "you" to personally discern the meaning of Scripture. If you don't do this, then you can't be positive that your church is "the" right church.

This would mean that scripture is the only guide to Christ. I disagree.

And Sola Scripturists agree wholeheartedly. We trust that what we discern from Scripture is revealed to us by God, through the Holy Spirit residing within us.

This does not adress the problem of human brokeness distorting what it sees. There is no discernment without persistent repentance. There is no discernment until one first discerns oneself through the eyes of God. WE often mistake our own eyes for God's.

Unless I'm going senile (which is entirely possible) I think I already said that.

How do we know our true spiritual heart from our feelings (typically called bowels, in scripture).

And membership to any particular church/denomination is not what determines this. It is our faith in God the genuineness of it, the degree of it . . . those things determine level of discernment--IMO.

I do not recall stating otherwise.

But where one views through a distortion, or bits and pieces, and mistakes it for wholeness, there is a problem. As described above, sola scriptura seems to be the institutionalization of mistaking the pieces for the whole.