EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

[racer]

I'm just playing by your rules. If anyone is allowed to make up they're own definition of Sola Scriptura, then I have made my own and it fits perfectly. Actually, mine sounds remarkably similar to the LCMS one.

what's with the ad hom?

My rules? I don't think so. In this last weak Protestants have been called "shallow, surface thinkers" and "rednecks" just to name a couple of the blatant insults that have been tossed our way . . . and I don't recall one protestant replying in kind.

 

[racer]

Racer, thank you for sharing these wonderful quotes from the ECF's. But unfortunately Protestantism doesn't consider the ECF's as the Authoritive Teachers of Scripture and Doctrine. Basically it defeats the purpose of quoting ECF's if they are not held as Authorities on Scripture and Doctrine.

Yes, I know. But, it is not the Protestants to which I am making my point. My point is that the EOs and the RCs DO consider these men to be authoritative. So, I thought some of you might need to know what the earliest teachers of the Church (before the, uh-hem . . . schism) actually taught. Thought you might want to re-evaluate what the "truth" really is.

 

[Kristos]

My rules? I don't think so. In this last weak Protestants have been called "shallow, surface thinkers" and "rednecks" just to name a couple of the blatant insults that have been tossed our way . . . and I don't recall one protestant replying in kind.

you must have me confused with someone else...

 

[racer]

I'm just playing by your rules. If anyone is allowed to make up they're own definition of Sola Scriptura, then I have made my own and it fits perfectly. Actually, mine sounds remarkably similar to the LCMS one.

what's with the ad hom?

First, nobody ever said that people are allowed to "make-up" their own definitions of anything. This post is yet another blatant example of how YOU have absolutely no qualms about distorting another persons words when you have no credible or insightful response to affirm your arguments. So, you create an argument that was never presented to you.

 

[racer]

you must have me confused with someone else...

I didn't specify any particular people, so no I'm not confusing you with anybody.

 

[Blackknight]

It ain't gonna happen--it can't, because both groups have made infallible declarations that prevent either side from giving in.

I guess that's what it all comes down to, we will never agree on anything due to our own stubbornness and egos. We're really talking in circles here so I am going to bow out of this thread. Peace be with you.

 

[racer]

[/size]I guess that's what it all comes down to, we will never agree on anything due to our own stubbornness and egos. We're really talking in circles here so I am going to bow out of this thread. Peace be with you.

Touchy today, huh . . . .

 

[Kristos]

First, nobody ever said that people are allowed to "make-up" their own definitions of anything. This post is yet another blatant example of how YOU have absolutely no qualms about distorting another persons words when you have no credible or insightful response to affirm your arguments. So, you create an argument that was never presented to you.

Your posit:

The point I'm getting at, that I am beginning to believe is being purposefully ignored is this: If there were 50 people who give 50 different explanations, this still would not discredit or negate Sola Scriptura. It only means that 50 people either understand it differently/incorrectly or simply do not articulate it accurately.

Am I not entitled to be one of fifty?

 

[Blackknight]

Yes, I'm touchy today. I guess it's natural after experiencing the beauty of Christ and seeing people crap all over it. It also miffs me a bit that people think they know our own doctrines better than we do.

Forgive me my brothers.

 

[tadoflamb]

The problem I have is that there is no one definition of SS to which all believers in SS ascribe. I can't even figure out if it's a doctrine or not. I've heard it is, and I've heard it isn't.

Within Catholicism, I don't have that problem. No matter what any of my co-religious may say about any doctrine, I can always test it against the central deposit of the faith to see if it's true or not.

I have not found the same to be true with SS.

In fact, in spite of no small amount of discussion, I have less of an idea of what SS is than when I first came on these boards.

 

[Yeznik]

Yes, I know. But, it is not the Protestants to which I am making my point. My point is that the EOs and the RCs DO consider these men to be authoritative. So, I thought some of you might need to know what the earliest teachers of the Church (before the, uh-hem . . . schism) actually taught. Thought you might want to re-evaluate what the "truth" really is.

There is no question of what the ECF’s are saying, the issue is the context in which they are misinterpreted by using Sola Scriptura. Additionally, quoting ECF’s doesn’t validate Sola Scriptura unless it is believed what they say is Authoritive and therefore true.

 

[Standing Up]

Hello Standing Up,

Here is a link that would list my posts in this thread that have the examples and explanations:

http://www.christianforums.com/search.php?searchid=3229969

Thank you.

It said, no matches. Nothing else came up.

 

[Yeznik]

It said, no matches. Nothing else came up.

Hmm.... the way I did it is clicked on my name once, it brought a drop down menu and I selected "find all posts by Yeznik". Hope this helps.

 

[Standing Up]

SUP: Justin quotes the OT text, regardless of the manuscript. "Thus his hands were steady until the sun set/evening. " He then changes it to "almost sunset". O, RCC, P all do not follow scripture; you are not faithful to scripture, but follow Justin Martyr. Of course, that is what you said you did.

Further, Martyr tells you why he alters scripture---so Jesus could be buried before sunset, according to Tradition. Had he followed scripture, Jesus would be buried the next day. That is OT and NT scripture.

Justin Martyr is correct , Christ was hanging on the cross till almost evening. Because when evening comes its the sabbath day and the body had to be taken down before then and laid in a tomb. Hence why the legs were broken of the other ttwo to kill them quickly. The women didnt even have time to annoint the body. Now not sure what NT your reading but its obvious not the same as mine. Even others who hold to sola scripture would disagree with your timeline, now is that sola scrupture or your interpretation of those scripture?.

Scripture--OT and NT.

Eventually I'll start a separate thread on it.

 

[Standing Up]

Hmm.... the way I did it is clicked on my name once, it brought a drop down menu and I selected "find all posts by Yeznik". Hope this helps.

How about just the two most difficult SS issues with scripture?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

nm......np

 

[Thekla]

Yes, I know. But, it is not the Protestants to which I am making my point. My point is that the EOs and the RCs DO consider these men to be authoritative. So, I thought some of you might need to know what the earliest teachers of the Church (before the, uh-hem . . . schism) actually taught. Thought you might want to re-evaluate what the "truth" really is.

The ECFs make these statements within the context of Tradition; repeatedly, interpretations supported by scriptural reference have been refuted by the ECFs against the measure of ethos, Tradition.

Thus, reading the quotes without understanding the context leads to a misunderstanding.

On the matter of "authoritative", whatever authority any speaker has is not derived from self. (As above, re: ethos etc.).

 

[Yeznik]

How about just the two most difficult SS issues with scripture?

The issues are not Sola Scriptura with Scripture, the issues are on the methodology of Sola Scriptura itself and its formulation. Let me give you one of the examples, John Calvin didn’t believe Christ had siblings, Calvinists believe Christ had siblings, both John Calvin and Calvinists use Sola Scriptura, but by using Sola Scriptura it has provided not only incoherent and contrary results but results that are polar opposites. Now if we considered Christ a real historical person He is either one (has siblings) or the other (doesn’t have siblings), He can’t be both. My point is since Sola Scriptura within Protestantism fails, how can it be used as a valid methodology to “measure” Orthodoxy.

 

[Thekla]

SUP: Justin quotes the OT text, regardless of the manuscript. "Thus his hands were steady until the sun set/evening. " He then changes it to "almost sunset". O, RCC, P all do not follow scripture; you are not faithful to scripture, but follow Justin Martyr. Of course, that is what you said you did.

Further, Martyr tells you why he alters scripture---so Jesus could be buried before sunset, according to Tradition. Had he followed scripture, Jesus would be buried the next day. That is OT and NT scripture.



Scripture--OT and NT.

Eventually I'll start a separate thread on it.

The quote does say "almost evening", though. Almost evening is also known as eventide. It precedes sunset.

"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."
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library (chapter XCVII, (97), Dialogue with Trypho)

 

[Standing Up]

The quote does say "almost evening", though. Almost evening is also known as eventide. It precedes sunset.

Here's Justin the Martyr

"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."
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library (chapter XCVII, (97), Dialogue with Trypho)

Here's Exodus 17:12 to which he refers:

KJV: But Moses' hands [were] heavy; and they took a stone, and put [it] under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.

NIV: (getting one right ) till sunset

NASB: until the sun set

YNG: till the going in of the sun

Justin Martyr on the same verse: almost until evening.

He and I (don't know about you folks) know what that means. Sunset. Sun has gone in/down. The day is over. A new day has begun. Clearly he KNOWS this. How do we know he knows it? Because he CHANGES it to read: ALMOST until evening.

The word, the idea, the concept of ALMOST is NOT there in scripture. If it was there, Justin would not need to add it. But he does add it. Why? He does it to conform to Tradition.

Now, if he had adhered to scripture, then it implies, according to the same well-known Tradition, that Christ was buried on Saturday/Sabbath. Clearly that is wrong. He was in fact buried on Friday/preparation day. Therefore, what? He must have died on Thursday/passover.

"It was by design" that Moses' hands were held steady until the going in of the sun. The NT tells us exactly the same story.

Tradition is wrong. Scripture is right.