EO Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

[Kristos]

I am not saying that there is a contradiction between following the words of the apostles and the words that is written in doctrine. What I am saying is, just because someone claims something and said "the apostles taught them through traditions of old" should not contradict what is written in the bible. And a lot of the traditions, contradict scripture therefore I choose to follow the only thing I know to be true and anything someone tells me, I compare it to scripture, it if contradicts, I won't follow or believe it.

Yes, I agree. There are a lot of traditions out there that contradict scripture. One doesn't have to look very far to find an example. If we rely only on ourselves to discern this though, then we too are contradicting scripture. Just as the ECFs were not infalliable, neither are we. This is why Holy Tradition is so important and so scriptural, because without it, we cannot follow the scriptures ourselves.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Yes, I agree. There are a lot of traditions out there that contradict scripture. One doesn't have to look very far to find an example. If we rely only on ourselves to discern this though, then we too are contradicting scripture. Just as the ECFs were not infalliable, neither are we. This is why Holy Tradition is so important and so scriptural, because without it, we cannot follow the scriptures ourselves.

See, I don't rely only on myself, I rely on scripture. The bible tell me that the Holy Spirit interpret it for us, and therefore as long as I continue studying the bible every day, then I allow the Holy Spirit to do His job. We can follow scripture ourselves, no where in scripture tell us that we cannot. If someone tells me something and claim that it is from scripture, then I need to compare it to scripture and make sure that what they are saying is correct, because scripture tell us that there are those who are false teachers and willingly twist scripture. If we are not in constant study then we won't know what are those false teachings. "Holy Traditions" does not stop me from understanding the bible. No where in the bible does it tell us that we cannot understand the scripture ourselves without the Holy Tradition. I do not put a trust in man to tell me about my salvation, I put my trust in God's word.

Hebrews 4:12-13

For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.​

 

[Kristos]

See, I don't rely only on myself, I rely on scripture. The bible tell me that the Holy Spirit interpret it for us, and therefore as long as I continue studying the bible every day, then I allow the Holy Spirit to do His job. We can follow scripture ourselves, no where in scripture tell us that we cannot. If someone tells me something and claim that it is from scripture, then I need to compare it to scripture and make sure that what they are saying is correct, because scripture tell us that there are those who are false teachers and willingly twist scripture. If we are not in constant study then we won't know what are those false teachings. "Holy Traditions" does not stop me from understanding the bible. No where in the bible does it tell us that we cannot understand the scripture ourselves without the Holy Tradition. I do not put a trust in man to tell me about my salvation, I put my trust in God's word.

Hebrews 4:12-13

For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.
​

To follow that strategy, you would have to claim that you are infallible in your reading of scripture. I assume you are not claiming infallibility - which means you could be wrong, no? Even the apostles had disagreements about what was correct. Did any of them claim to be infallible because they had received the Holy Spirit? No! They came together in a conciliar way, and worked it out together, as the church.

I would quote Paul as well, but to me this is condemnation of those try to wield its power without any authority, thus he describes it as a two-edged sword.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

To follow that strategy, you would have to claim that you are infallible in your reading of scripture. I assume you are not claiming infallibility

The reading and interpretation of Scripture is not the subject of this thread.


To MY knowledge, only one claims to be infallible/unaccountable in the reading and interpretation of Scripture and that's the RCC. The LDS once so claimed but does not longer. Does the EO so claim?

The topic before us is the embraced canon/rule for the evaluation of positions, and particularly the supposed apolgetics that the EO uses to condemn the use of Scripture as such.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Of course. Of course, such is not permission to ASSUME Jesus TAUGHT dogmas where there is zero indication of such. Such is the fundamental problem in Mormonism, the ASSUMPTION that there's all the "Second Testimony" or what we sometimes see in other denominations, "the Apostles taught this...." but when you ask "where?" you get a blank look. I could ANYONE could say, "Jesus said that Josiah is the smartest guy alive!" But if there's no evidence that He did, is that good to ASSUME? DOGMATICALLY? And if I can do it, why not Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy? Maybe what we need is some record of what Jesus and the Apostle said, one in writing, one ALL PARTIES involved in the discussion agree is accurate, sound, reliable - and KNOWABLE? Ah, that's the question of this thread. WHAT should we use as the canon, the norma normans? IF the view of Josiah about Josiah is the rule for what Josiah says about Josiah, we are apt to conclude that what Josiah says about Josiah agrees with the rule/canon of what Josiah says about Josiah - but is THAT the most sound rule for the determination of whether what Josiah says is correct???? Maybe we need something beyond, above, outside of Josiah.... It would be ideal if GOD wrote something, wouldn't it?

What Christ was described as doing in scripture was more than reference scripture; referencing scripture was not His only action. Sola scriptura selects one action and discards His other actions. This is inconsistent and reifies iteration and text. It reduces the person of Christ to a brain and a tongue. It replaces the person of Christ with a textual reification.

You agreed with Jesus used Scripture normatively/canonically.

You insisted that He used many OTHER THINGS normatively/canonically. And you said you would list these things and the examples where Jesus used them canonically/normatively. After many, many days - you have yet to do that. At first because you stated you were "too busy" to give ALL the examples, so I asked you give just ONE such - but that has been ignored.

I would think that this list of "other things" Jesus used as a norma normans would include the list of things the EO uses, but you have ignored all that - so perhaps not.

Again, this is YOUR point, not mine. We AGREE that Jesus used Scripture canonically (the Rule of Scripture, aka Sola Scriptura). It is YOUR consistant, persistent point that Jesus used OTHER things - you just won't say what or when He did.

Well, if you have evidence of what Jesus said that is NOT included in the Bible, then such really should be submitted for inclusion in the Scriptures. I kinda wonder why no one has even suggested that in 2000 years. Now, I realize that Mary Baker Eddy and Joseph Smith think He taught things not contained in the Bible, but there's no consensus at all beyond individual denominations about that. Again, if you have historic, ecumenically accepted writtings with the words of Jesus - containing dogmas which He din't teach in our 27 NT books, let's see them.

Why are your only examples of others always given a negative tinge; it renders a sort of "guilt by association" without regard for the argument being made.

Where did I indicated ANYTHING as negative.

IF you conside the rubric negatively, why are you defending, supporting and promoting it?

Why are you continuing to refuse to give the examples of Jesus using OTHER things canonically/normatively?

What other canon/norm did Jesus use? We know he used Scripture normatively some 50 times. But when did He use the addtional norms of the EO? I've asked for at least one example of each of them, repeatedly I've asked for this, but so far no one has supplied such.

Thus, you seem to argue that of the things Christ did which are described in scripture, only the action of verbalizing in reference to scripture is of value.

Friend, we AGREE that Jesus used Scripture canonically.

YOUR point is that He used OTHER THINGS canonically/normatively. One would think this would be the things the EO so uses and that are being defended and promoted here, but so far, you refuse to say what these things Jesus used as His norma normans are - much less give examples of He using the EO's things.....

Nice, but moot. If you are claiming that Jesus used the EO Liturgy as norma normans, then please supply at least one example. A case where Jesus taught something, then held such up to the canon of the EO Liturgy and said (as He did some 50 times with Scripture), "As the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy says...." Or "As it is stated in the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy....." and then such is given. I'm NOT asking for every single example, just one would help.


We agree that Jesus used Scripture canonically/normatively. This is known as The Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura). What we are all waiting for all the "many times Jesus used OTHER THINGS" that you persistently insist that He did.

​

Wonderful. Although, how does the Jewish chant serve as the norma normans for determining, for example, if the Bishop of Rome is infallible - as one denomination among us states, dogmatically? If one is going to condemn such a few - perhaps even excommunicate and conduct wars over such - what notations in the Chant does one use to substantiate such? Either to affirm or deny the Dogma of Papal Infallibility and Superiority?

Can you show me an example in the Bible where either a Jewish or EO chant is used canonically, normatively? It might help me understand you better if I could see an example of it being so used. ​

​

The Bible does not contain pictures, nor was there film in that era; you're really stretching

Is this your way of saying, "I have nothing to support my arguement?"

Now, IF Orthodox doesn't concern itself with correctness or error, doctrine or heresy, true or false - if it regards all such as moot (and thus has no teachings it embraces) or rather embraces pure relativism, then perhaps the entire topic of this thread is moot. I just don't know. But IF such things matter, then norming is accepted as sound and necessary. My question then is this: WHAT is embraced as the norma normans for such? IF it is as it is in the RCC, the views embraced by the self same (they call such "Tradition"), then self is simply looking to see if self agrees with self. IMHO, this actually is a circumvention of norming, it has replaced "is it true?" with "do I agree with myself?"

It seems the utilization of reified text has shown its resulting transformtion in action

... interesting how no Orthodox will answer this question. That MAY well be the thing learned in this thread: perhaps the whole subject of norming is moot to the EO because truth is? Well, I guess we won't know because none will answer the question.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Originally Posted by Blackknight

Holy Tradition is the guide, canon, rule, whatever you want to call it that we use.
​

Ah. Some questions:

1. Who or what determines what this "Holy Tradition" is? Is it the EO? CC? Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod? The World Council of Churches? You? Me? Your Bishop? Who? What?

2. What the EO calls "Tradition" is not what the CC calls Tradition. It varies at many points - sometimes dogmatically. The Infallibility of the Papacy, the Assumption of Mary, Transubstantiation, the Filoque - oh, the list is long. What is your evidence that yours is the correct one and the CC is the wrong one?

3. Is Tradition what the EO believes? If so, then how is using the rule/caon of Tradition to evaluation if the EO is correct useful? How can looking in a mirror reveal anything but oneself?

The Orthodox Church is the body of Christ and is the pillar of truth. To be blunt, if you don't accept what the church teaches then you are anathema.
​

Ah, so only the Orthodox Church is Christian. Christians are anathema? Only one institution is Christian - the EO? Since the overwhelming majority of the world's 2.2 billion people are not even registered in congregations of the EO (much less are the EO denomination), they are not Christians?

But all that aside, I'm lost (my friend) as to what this has to do with the subject at hand? Why does this mean that the EO is correct in all its positions? It seems to be a backwards statement: "I'm correct, so I'm the church so I'm correct." It's just a circle. "I'm the Truth so I'm the Truth therefore I'm the Truth." Now, do you accept that rubric? If a Mormon said to you, "The LDS is the Church, the pillar of Truth, if yiou don't accept what it teaches than you are apostate" does that make it true - you'd accept that apologetic as valid and sound? If not, why do you use it?

Now, OF COURSE, you believe your position to be true (I'd respect you less if you didn't!). But that's NOT the issue before us. WE ALL THINK WE'RE RIGHT! Do we do as you did: Just proclaim we are right - so therefore we are? Is THAT the best norma normans: to see if self agrees with self?





.

 

[racer]

Originally Posted by Blackknight

The Orthodox Church is the body of Christ and is the pillar of truth. To be blunt, if you don't accept what the church teaches then you are anathema.

Ahhhhh . . . . how refreshing, a Catholic/Orthodox who isn't afraid to blatantly own this declaration of--was it the Council of Trent?--that those not of either faith are considered to be anathematized. Do you know how many people assert that if we never belonged to either church, we can not be anathematized?

This always baffled me, because I never saw such a specification in all of the anathemas declared by that council.

Thank you for your honesty!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Dear CJ,

Im not sureif your being serious about Jesus using byzantine chant or a liturgy etc

1. EO posters here informed me that the Byzantine Chant is one of the canons/rule/norma normans in the EO.

2. I was used that Jesus not ONLY used Scripture normatively (we seem to agree on that point - examples of The Rule of Scripture, aka, Sola Scriptura) but that He so used OTHER things. Including the EO's. So, naturally, I've asked for examples of such. I was told they would given, then not, then that they would. But so far, nothing has been shared.

Even lutherans use liturgical texts for their service.

"EVEN....." LOL. Yes, Lutheran liturgies (like those of all liturgical services) are largely the incorporation of Scripture. Nearly every word is simply Scriptures.

But this thread has nothing to do with good practices in the formation of liturgies, the issue is the embraced rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of positions (especially doctrines). Now, IF you are saying that the SCRIPTURE used in the Liturgy of the EO is normative (and I have no reason to conclude that IS your point), then that would be similar to Sola Scripture except that ONLY the Scriptures specifically found quoted in your liturgy would be normative (the rest, I presumed, ignored). But what we were told is that the LITURGY is one of the rules, not the Scripture in such.

If I believe in 'scripture only' it does not mean that i should call up the Baptists and tell them to throw out the hymn, 'Amazing Grace" because its not contained in the bible. Should the hymn be rejected because it was composed centuries later and may not be reliable in conveying christian truth soley because if its age?

.... Lost me, my friend...

No Baptist is saying that the hymn, "Amazing Grace" is THE norma normans (or even A norma normans). For anything.

The age of the composition is moot to anything. No Baptist believes that all things said or song prior to 1941 are infallible/unaccountable and the norma normans for all said or song from 1942 (or any other date) and after. Lost me....

Many Baptist embrace Sola Scriptura so that teachings are accountable - not to themselves but to Scripture. Thus, the lyrics of "Amazing Grace" would not be the Rule for the lyrics of Amazing Grace, rather Scripture would be.

I could on the other hand tell them to get rid of the hymn if it teaches false doctrine. Do you see the difference?

1. Yes, in which case you'd be regarding teaching as ACCOUNTABLE (and thus rejecting the claim of self alone for self alone that self along is infallible - a position of The Catholic Church and formerly of the LDS but I don't know about the EO).

2. IF the teaching is accountable, then we are dealing with NORMING (the subject of this thread) and one of the questions becames, "to WHAT?" WHAT will serve as the canon/rule/norma normans?

3. IF you claim that this hymn (actually, Anglican in heritage - not Baptist) is accountable to something OUTSIDE of it, then why is the liturgy of the EO not so? If you can claim that your liturgy is the Rule, why can't an Anglican claim that the lyrics of Amazing Grace is?

Now of course there are byzantine and jewish chants and gregorian chants used normatively- in scripture there called the psalms! In fact entire chapters of scripture can and are sung using byzantine musical form.

Again, IF your point is that the SCRIPTURES QUOTED in these are normative, then your point is that SCRIPTURE is normative, not the chants. But that was not what we were told by the EO's here. We were told that Scripture is BUT ONE of MANY things in the collection that the EO uses as its rule/canon/norma normans. Which is it?

And of course theres liturgical worship in heaven as described in the book of revelation.

I agree. Can you list examples where such was used as the canon in the norming of positions? And since no one on Earth knows the content of such, how do you suggest that the world's 2.2 billion Christians use such, say to evaluation the correctness of the DOGMA of Transubstantiation or Papal Infallibility?

Now on the other hand are you implying that in Lutheranism the reason why scripture is the sole true norm, is because the lutheran creeds and hymns and liturgical texts contain errors and heresies and thus should not be relied upon?

No Lutheran denomination (known to ME) claims that all the lyrics in their hymnbook are the norma normans for the evaluation of teachings. And yes, they would regard the teachings of the authors of those lyrics to be accountable - and the "to what?" would be to Scripture.

My Lutheran denomination has perhaps 300 songs in its official hymnal. There are, of course, likely millions of hymns. ONE of the criteria used for what is included and what is excluded is the biblical correctness of the lyrics - as held up to the light of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) but this is not creedal or doctrinal in nature, again, NO ONE is claiming that the lyrics in any hymnbook are an additional norma normans to Scripture so taht we have TWO canons: Scripture AND the latest edition of the hymnal used in a specific Lutheran denomination.

Now as far as the lutheran definition of sola scripture, Orthodox has a problem with the insistence of terms such as "sole". That it is the sole true norm or that it is the only writing or vehicle for transmitting the faith which has ever been divinely inspired.
Its actually quite naive to think that after the final book of scripture was written nothing else could ever be relied upon, and all must remain static.

Understood. But it seems to ME the rejection of Sola Scriptura (when address to the actual praxis - which none of the reasons given in the opening post to) is two fold (as I've gathered from the RCC and LDS - the two most violently opposed to Sola Scriptura):
1. It assumes that self is accountable, and self (RCC but no longer LDS) declares that self is not - thus the whole issue is moot. Self CANNOT be wrong if self so self claims (as the RCC does). Thus, ANY norma normans is moot.
2. It requires that ALL be subject to a rule OUTSIDE and ABOVE self (RCC and LDS - here the LDS agrees). The real Rule is what self affirms ("Tradition" - RCC, "Second Testimony" - LDS) because the WHOLE insight of God is to be used as the Rule, and this is known only to self, thus the views of self ARE the rule for the views of self. If self agrees with self then self is correct.

Sola Scriptura rejects that the veiws of self alone are the best norma normans for the evaluation of the self same. Not only because obviously this is a perfect circle of self-authentication and CAN do nothing other than declare self to be correct (it's just looking in the mirror) but also because we never see this exampled in Scripture or by the Lord of the Church.

Now if anyone would like written sources outside of scripture then i point you to the Didache, the epistles of Ignatius, the epistle of Clement of Rome, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the fragments of Hegesipus etc.
etc

... interesting since the Early Church REJECTED this as canonical, thus you are suggesting something contrary to your own denomination's Tradition while calling that Tradition normative.

Now, do these NONcanonical books (thus, NOT the rule or norma normans) give us much wisdom? Do they reveal much about the faith of the earliest Christians? Should they be studied? ABSOLUTELY!!

But, of course, none of them do anything to norm the distinctive doctrines of any denomination (including yours). So, that discussion is rather moot.

Where we get to the core of the issue is when the RCC (which ALONE can determined what is and is not "Tradition" and ALONE can determine what that snippet means) says that the Tradition that it chooses as it interprets is the Canon for the evaluation of it's Tradition (which is exactly what "the three legged stool" norm of the RCC and LDS does). THAT is the thing the Reformers were speaking to.






.

 

[Blackknight]

Anathema does not mean damnation and I'm not sure if it's a term you can apply to non-Orthodox as it really refers to expulsion from the church.

Anathema - OrthodoxWiki

I definitely see a lot of heterodox views on this board though.

 

[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]

 

[Blackknight]

Must we keep repeating ourselves? I don't even see what your goal here is except trying to force us to accept your views.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Must we keep repeating ourselves? I don't even see what your goal here is except trying to force us to accept your views.

My "goal" is to discuss the supposed EO apologetics AGAINST embracing Scirpture as the canon/rule/norma normans.

It is MY view (and NO ONE is asked or expected to agree) that such either has nothing to do with the praxis at all (and thus is moot) or simply is an attempt to suggest that either ONE is unaccountable if one so self-claims for one's self alone (thus a norma normans is moot) OR is suggesting that the views of self are the better rule/canon/norma normans for the evalutation of the self same.

And my reason for posting questions to you is to have you respond so that we can have a discussion (kinda how it goes on these boards). My attempts, however, seem muted since there seems to be a great desire to not address them or to discuss the topic here. Or even if the EO regards truth as existing at all.


Did you want to discuss the issue of norming and the embraced rule/canon? Did you want to give your view on my many questions? Did you want to discuss the opening post (the matter of this thread)?



.



.

 

[Blackknight]

Christ is the truth, of course he exists. I've already posted my view here so I'm not going to repeat myself. There's also numerous books, blogs, and web sites available so you have plenty of resources available to research.

After 50 pages I think we've all said what we have to say, is there really any use in beating a dead horse?

 

[racer]

Must we keep repeating ourselves? I don't even see what your goal here is except trying to force us to accept your views.

How can a person make you come to this forum and continue to read or respond to a topic which you have no desire to learn anything about?

I'm not trying to force anything on anybody. I'm just making sure arguments and "evidence" from the non-Catholic side are presented for ALL people to see.

 

[Kristos]

How can a person make you come to this forum and continue to read or respond to a topic which you have no desire to learn anything about?

I'm not trying to force anything on anybody. I'm just making sure arguments and "evidence" from the non-Protestant side are presented for ALL people to see.

Honestly, I don't think many of us are here to learn...although I have picked up some things along the way

If anyone want to honestly learn about EO, they come to TAW.

 

[Blackknight]

How can a person make you come to this forum and continue to read or respond to a topic which you have no desire to learn anything about?

You are correct. I've decided this forum is not good for my spiritual health and will no longer come here.

 

[racer]

Honestly, I don't think many of us are here to learn...although I have picked up some things along the way

If anyone want to honestly learn about EO, they come to TAW.

Personally, I've learned a lot from these forums. I "do" know the differences between Catholic and Orthodox. However, I still get confused as to which group is being discussed, since both tend to make very similar arguments. But, I honestly, do not argue against false or misrepresented Catholic or Orthodox doctrine. It took a while, but I finally understood the gist of Papal Infallibility or Magisterial Infallibility. I no longer argue that either group is idolatrous--not that I ever actually did, but in the beginning I was ill-informed about the issue. I understand what Perpetual Virginity is as well as the Immaculate Conception. So, when I argue against these dogmas/doctrines, I argue against a true representation of them. Actually, I readlly don't argue against particular Catholic or Orthodox doctrine . . . except Holy Tradition and The Real Presence.

I am not here to convince or convert anybody. But, I do like to know that anyone who is here to learn or make a decision has all the facts at his disposal.

 

[racer]

After 50 pages I think we've all said what we have to say, is there really any use in beating a dead horse?

You do realize that you can only speak for yourself. You may have said all you wanted/needed to say, and even heard all you wanted/needed to hear, but you can not speak for all involved in this discussion . . . .

When exactly did you decide we were beating a dead horse? On page 1 or page 50? Before you joined the discussion or fifty (50) pages later?

 

[racer]

Anathema does not mean damnation and I'm not sure if it's a term you can apply to non-Orthodox as it really refers to expulsion from the church.

Anathema - OrthodoxWiki

I definitely see a lot of heterodox views on this board though.

And we've all heard this explanatiion before, also - - - even though when reading the harsh verbiage and language employed by this council, we see much condemnation there. But, once again, we are to inept to trust our own intellectual abilities and reading comprehension skills.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Just exactly what Sacred Traditions contradict Sacred Scripture?

I have not read up on Sacred Traditions, I don't know any of them. But if Sacred Tradition does not contradict scripture, then theoretically, I can live my life on scripture alone and it not contradict what "Sacred Tradtion" teaches. If Sacred Tradition is derived from scripture, then I will put my trust in scripture.

But I know a lot of your "traditions" (though I don't know if they are considered sacred) contradict scripture....like going to the priest and confessing your sins and him telling you to say a couple of "Hail Mary's" and supposedly your sins are forgiven. Like calling someone "Father" or asking women to be "Nuns" something that you do not see in scripture. Throwing something called "holy water" on someone's forehead and claiming that they are baptized--in scripture people were submerged, not thrown water on forehead.