EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

[Standing Up]

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.

SS fails because it supposedly leads to conflicting conclusions. So does Tradition, however.

We are so far down the road from the beginning of Christianity, so I'd ask what is the motivation behind believing one or the other position? Who cares? Why does it matter? From there, begin to SS.

 

[Thekla]

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: 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.

Which Gospel account are you referring to?

 

[Thekla]

I thought, for understanding, this example might help re: ECFs

Augustine is considered a Saint in the EO. Some of his writings are considered valuable. But he is a Saint in the EO for his deep repentance; his theology is largely not accepted in the EO.

Thus, the view of the ECFs in the EO is not what westerners seem to think it is.

 

[Standing Up]

Which Gospel account are you referring to?

Supposedly it was also Justin Martyr who first divided the understanding of Gospel into the four Gospels. One result was whether to use leavened/unleavened bread at the Last Supper (RCC/P and EO can point to scripture and support either way--crucifixion after Passover in the Synoptics, crucifixion before Passover in John. Which is right? They both are and the reason is also shown in scripture.)

So, Moses/ hands up to evening/sunset as a type of Jesus on the cross.

Mt. 26:20 Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining {at the table} with the twelve disciples. (they will eat Passover meal, arrested at midnight).

Mt. 27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: (crucifixion and death on Thursday/Passover/14th).

Hands up on the cross to evening/sunset.

Mt. 27:57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: (requests body, burial on Friday/preparation day/15th/high sabbath feast day per John 19:31).

So, Scripture clearly tells us and Justin Martyr inadvertently confirms for us exactly what happened.

 

[Thekla]

Supposedly it was also Justin Martyr who first divided the understanding of Gospel into the four Gospels. One result was whether to use leavened/unleavened bread at the Last Supper (RCC/P and EO can point to scripture and support either way--crucifixion after Passover in the Synoptics, crucifixion before Passover in John. Which is right? They both are and the reason is also shown in scripture.)

So, Moses/ hands up to evening/sunset as a type of Jesus on the cross.

Mt. 26:20 Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining {at the table} with the twelve disciples. (they will eat Passover meal, arrested at midnight).

Mt. 27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death: (crucifixion and death on Thursday/Passover/14th).

Hands up on the cross to evening/sunset.

Mt. 27:57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: (requests body, burial on Friday/preparation day/15th/high sabbath feast day per John 19:31).

So, Scripture clearly tells us and Justin Martyr inadvertently confirms for us exactly what happened.

I'm sorry

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I'm between dance class/dinner etc., but I did check Luke; there is in Luke the terminology of "approaching/towards" times as opposed to a day night dichotomy ...

 

[Yeznik]

SS fails because it supposedly leads to conflicting conclusions. So does Tradition, however.

We are so far down the road from the beginning of Christianity, so I'd ask what is the motivation behind believing one or the other position? Who cares? Why does it matter? From there, begin to SS.

Actually, Tradition hasn’t failed yet, only individual misinterpretations of them. Tradition has provided us with Christmas, a day to celebrate Christ’s Birthday, SS hasn’t, Tradition has brought us the Resurrection and the empty tomb, SS hasn’t, Tradition describes Christ, SS confuses Him, Tradition describes Christ’s mother, SS confuses her, and the list goes on and on. The funny thing is all the things I pointed out about Tradition is what makes Christ a real person, nothing doctrinal or theological, but then again SS has failed to do this.

But you do ask some great questions and I believe that we should ask these questions to ourselves everyday. My suggestion is to start with the empty tomb and the people who there and originally saw it, like the Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, Romans, Armenians, then work your way up till now.

 

[Standing Up]

I'm sorry

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I'm between dance class/dinner etc., but I did check Luke; there is in Luke the terminology of "approaching/towards" times as opposed to a day night dichotomy ...

Yes there is.

Lk. 23:54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

It's easily explained (the two verb tenses are exactly the same, imperfect, yet translated two ways--past and future. Imperfect means the action began in the past and continues in the present. The day was the preparation and was the (feast) sabbath, as John also says). The four gospels are one seamless whole.

But I don't want to hijack this thread. The question is what does one believe? What rule of faith does one use? In this example of Justin Martyr Tradition he clearly changes the meaning of Scripture. Who will you believe?

 

[Standing Up]

Actually, Tradition hasn’t failed yet, only individual misinterpretations of them. Tradition has provided us with Christmas, a day to celebrate Christ’s Birthday, SS hasn’t, Tradition has brought us the Resurrection and the empty tomb, SS hasn’t, Tradition describes Christ, SS confuses Him, Tradition describes Christ’s mother, SS confuses her, and the list goes on and on. The funny thing is all the things I pointed out about Tradition is what makes Christ a real person, nothing doctrinal or theological, but then again SS has failed to do this.

Well, Tradition obviously confuses these things, else OO wouldn't have split, EO wouldn't have split, RC wouldn't have split, P wouldn't have split.

But you do ask some great questions and I believe that we should ask these questions to ourselves everyday. My suggestion is to start with the empty tomb and the people who there and originally saw it, like the Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, Romans, Armenians, then work your way up till now.

I did start at the empty tomb (death, burial, and resurrection of the Gospel) and worked through Asia Minor (Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates) Tradition. The other Tradition stands in contrast.

 

[Standing Up]

Council of Trent:

... receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, ... and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. ...
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

 

[Yeznik]

Well, Tradition obviously confuses these things, else OO wouldn't have split, EO wouldn't have split, RC wouldn't have split, P wouldn't have split.



I did start at the empty tomb (death, burial, and resurrection of the Gospel) and worked through Asia Minor (Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates) Tradition. The other Tradition stands in contrast.

The splits between the Ancient Churches are what can be described as higher steps on the theological ladder. Meaning outside of Scripture we all have list of canons, councils and creeds we have in common. Yet, in contrast to SS system which cannot even provide a common bottom rung on the ladder has none. Even though the Traditions of the OO,EO and the RCC differ, we all can agree that formula of Sola Scriptura is absent since the beginning of any of these churches.

 

[buzuxi02]

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.[/quote




You know that in judaism days are calculated from evening to evening right? Its a lunar based calendar. The sabbbath began on sundown (friday evening). Which is why Christ was hanging "almost" till sunset. it was unlawful to leave the bodies hanging on the sabbath, so they had to be removed before then. Theres nothing objectionable here. If you believe so then you will have to debate fellow sola scripture believers, since they will also disagree with you.

 

[Thekla]

Yes there is.

Lk. 23:54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

It's easily explained (the two verb tenses are exactly the same, imperfect, yet translated two ways--past and future. Imperfect means the action began in the past and continues in the present. The day was the preparation and was the (feast) sabbath, as John also says). The four gospels are one seamless whole.

But I don't want to hijack this thread. The question is what does one believe? What rule of faith does one use? In this example of Justin Martyr Tradition he clearly changes the meaning of Scripture. Who will you believe?

I still don't get what you mean

Luke says Jesus was interred on the preparation (paraskeui); John does as well. After describing the request by Joseph and Nicodemos for His body, John explains they wrapped the body with spices and put it in the tomb:

"Then they laid Jesus because of the preparation/paraskeui of the Jews, for the sepulchre was near." 19:42

The tomb being close by saved time.

(Note that the term for evening, opsios, covers typically a long period afternoon through sunset. For example, in John 6 (vs 15 on) he uses opsios first for before sunset and a few verses later uses the adjective "dark" to narrow the time frame for opsios. Also see Matthew 14 (verses 15 on); opsios is used several times, but across a broad period of time (its opsios again in verse 23).

So if Jesus was interred on a Friday, in a hurry so it wouldn't be on a sabbath, the crucifixion must have been finished before sunset.

 

[Athanasias]

I can actaully prove that the eastern Orthodox Churches also beleive in sola scriptura.

From the 11th century:

Patriarch Bob Smith of the Northern ambrosian-coptic-syrean chaldeam orthodox Church said:

"Hey we believe in sola scriptura" Of course he said it in Greek.

 

[buzuxi02]

Well, Tradition obviously confuses these things, else OO wouldn't have split, EO wouldn't have split, RC wouldn't have split, P wouldn't have split.



I did start at the empty tomb (death, burial, and resurrection of the Gospel) and worked through Asia Minor (Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates) Tradition. The other Tradition stands in contrast.

The split with the RC outside of cultural shifts withing Europe was precisely because they began to depart from tradition. The RCC ADMIT to these changes but dont find them objectionable. Some of these innovations included the 11th century insertion of the fillioque clause into the creed which is an addition to scripture (John 15.26) claiming the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. The original creed used by the EO and is confirmed by scripture is "'proceeds from the Father" (alone).

Ironically groups which claim to use sola scripture such as the Lutherans and Anglicans sill use the creed with this 11th century latin insertion .

Anpther dispute involved the switch from leavened bread to wafers. The RCC Church does not deny this change of usage. Once again the scriptures teach of leavened bread as was the universal consent up until the 10th century (find out what the greek word artos means as used in the synoptics for what Christ used). Again sola scripturalists tend to view the Last supper as a sedar because the Latins passoverized the last supper a few centuries earlier. As time went on reconciliation became more difficult because of papal supremacy and a new teaching emerged in the 13th century amongst the latins, that is purgatory.
The OO split is simply a small one. In fact i urge anyone to study these two churches and see how close they are to each other. A seperation of 1500 years, and only one teaching seperates us, and many believe its simply over semantics. The differences between the EO and OO are minor compared to the differences between groups calling themselves baptists or between the schisms found within anglicanism, or the schism between pentecostals and oneness pentecostals.
The OO and EO did not spawn thousands of groups and remain closely linked on every matter even after 1500 years. On the other hand protestantism daily creates new schisms and the western europeans had to create a new innovation to explain away their lawlessness and that is the word "denomination".

 

[Athanasias]

The split with the RC outside of cultural shifts withing Europe was precisely because they began to depart from tradition. The RCC ADMIT to these changes but dont find them objectionable. Some of these innovations included the 11th century insertion of the fillioque clause into the creed which is an addition to scripture (John 15.26) claiming the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. The original creed used by the EO and is confirmed by scripture is "'proceeds from the Father" (alone).

Ironically groups which claim to use sola scripture such as the Lutherans and Anglicans sill use the creed with this 11th century latin insertion .

Anpther dispute involved the switch from leavened bread to wafers. The RCC Church does not deny this change of usage. Once again the scriptures teach of leavened bread as was the universal consent up until the 10th century (find out what the greek word artos means as used in the synoptics for what Christ used). Again sola scripturalists tend to view the Last supper as a sedar because the Latins passoverized the last supper a few centuries earlier. As time went on reconciliation became more difficult because of papal supremacy and a new teaching emerged in the 13th century amongst the latins, that is purgatory.
The OO split is simply a small one. In fact i urge anyone to study these two churches and see how close they are to each other. A seperation of 1500 years, and only one teaching seperates us, and many believe its simply over semantics. The differences between the EO and OO are minor compared to the differences between groups calling themselves baptists or between the schisms found within anglicanism, or the schism between pentecostals and oneness pentecostals.
The OO and EO did not spawn thousands of groups and remain closely linked on every matter even after 1500 years. On the other hand protestantism daily creates new schisms and the western europeans had to create a new innovation to explain away their lawlessness and that is the word "denomination".

Actually the filioque clause that was added dates back to the 6th century in Spain as I studied this for a test on Church history 2 years ago.

 

[buzuxi02]

Actually the filioque clause that was added dates back to the 6th century in Spain as I studied this for a test on Church history 2 years ago.

Correct, it was added in toledo Spain in about 589 a.d. but limited to the spanish church. But was not endorsed by the roman church nor adopted by the church in rome creed till about 1009 a.d.

 

[katherine2001]

I can actaully prove that the eastern Orthodox Churches also beleive in sola scriptura.

From the 11th century:

Patriarch Bob Smith of the Northern ambrosian-coptic-syrean chaldeam orthodox Church said:

"Hey we believe in sola scriptura" Of course he said it in Greek.

Coptic Orthodox are not Eastern Orthodox.

 

[SpiritDriven]

I find it incredible that somebody would argue against being in agreement with the word that first proceeded out of the mouth of God.

I thought it was only Israel that was supposed to be given a spirit of Stupor by God in this era....

 

[Standing Up]

The splits between the Ancient Churches are what can be described as higher steps on the theological ladder. Meaning outside of Scripture we all have list of canons, councils and creeds we have in common. Yet, in contrast to SS system which cannot even provide a common bottom rung on the ladder has none. Even though the Traditions of the OO,EO and the RCC differ, we all can agree that formula of Sola Scriptura is absent since the beginning of any of these churches.

Not absent according to those quotes given earlier.

I understand the irony of behavior/belief/tradition of men pointing to a written rule, but that is what they did.

Polycarp--well-versed in holy scripture, for example.

Nowhere do you read of someone pointing to a tradition to sustain their activity; they pointed to scripture and succession.

Anyway, higher steps as they devolved from "it is written".

 

[Standing Up]

Evening to evening, just as Justin knew as well.

Choose a schismed Tradition of "almost until evening" over Scripture of "until evening" and the Tradition therefrom going from Christ to the Apostles to the Bishops like Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates.