Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus…..Outside The Church There Is No Salvation !!!!

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

You should accustom yourself to use the correct theological terminology. Jesus was resurrected, he was raised to a new existence, transformed, not simply resuscitated.

"Of close proximity to Scripture" is a strange relationship to the scriptures. Scripture and Tradition share the same relationship as a Mobius strip.

First, in French, we have good terminology, with Calvin and others...
Secondly, theology is not an amusement circus with Some rollercoasters, like this Mobius strip...
If Christ rose again, according to the scriptures, so all our faith-even the creed-must be confirmed by the scriptures, If we deny this inference, we must revoke the creed and leave Christianity...

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

First, in French, we have good terminology, with Calvin and others...
Secondly, theology is not an amusement circus with Some rollercoasters, like this Mobius strip...
If Christ rose again, according to the scriptures, so all our faith-even the creed-must be confirmed by the scriptures, If we deny this inference, we must revoke the creed and leave Christianity...

First, I don't think Calvin was altogether very good... He was more Catholic than most of his contemporary followers care to admit and he was much more intelligent than the very crude and vulgar (and anti-Semitic) Luther, but his Augustinianism was extreme...
Secondly, theology is amusing and as I said Scripture and Tradition are related as a Mobius strip is: Scripture is birthed from the Tradition of the Church, it further informs the Church and is subsequently defined by Tradition, it is further elaborated upon by Tradition.
Thirdly, it's rather interesting that you bring up 1 Corinthians 15. It is probably the earliest recorded Christian creed.

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

First, I don't think Calvin was altogether very good... He was more Catholic than most of his contemporary followers care to admit and he was much more intelligent than the very crude and vulgar (and anti-Semitic) Luther, but his Augustinianism was extreme...
Secondly, theology is amusing and as I said Scripture and Tradition are related as a Mobius strip is: Scripture is birthed from the Tradition of the Church, it further informs the Church and is subsequently defined by Tradition, it is further elaborated upon by Tradition.
Thirdly, it's rather interesting that you bring up 1 Corinthians 15. It is probably the earliest recorded Christian creed.

I don't care about your opinion over Calvin, but his success is amazing...
Theology is not kidding, like some priest did in some schools and orphanages...
Luther may be crude, but he denounced the vice of the clergy, at his time...
The tradition make a great distinction between the canonical books and other ecclesiastical writings, otherwise the notion of canonical books list was inept...

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I don't care about your opinion over Calvin, but his success is amazing...

I wouldn't call it his success - he probably would disagree with the vast majority of contemporary New Calvinists.

Theology is not kidding, like some priest did in some schools and orphanages...

What are you implying here? That sexual abuse is a joke?

Luther may be crude, but he denounced the vice of the clergy, at his time...

He asked the right questions and denounced very many things that required denouncing. However, he can be understood best as a German upset about the imposition of Italian authority during the demise of the old German imperial powers.

The tradition make a great distinction between the canonical books and other ecclesiastical writings, otherwise the notion of canonical books list was inept...

You don't seem to be disagreeing with my points here. I never said Scripture wasn't important.

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

What are you implying here? That sexual abuse is a joke?
.

Not for me or for victims, indeed.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Not for me or for victims, indeed.

Good! Sexual abuse is a huge problem and needs to be exorcised.

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

Good! Sexual abuse is a huge problem and needs to be exorcised.

"Exorcised" is the adequate term...

 

[~Anastasia~]

If we believe that Jesus-Christ rose again from death, ACCORDING TO the scriptures, I cannot understand, if we admit the canonical book list's existence, how we can deny for Gospel, what it's necessary for his base, the resuscitation: the "juxta scriptura"?...

I started to address that phrase "according to the Scriptures" earlier, but I deleted my comment, as I wasn't interested in opening a can of worms.

However ... A couple of points.

First and foremost, no one is denying the Resurrection of Christ. It is absolutely foundational to the Gospel, to all that we believe to be Divine Truth, and a necessary foundation to our faith.

However, I don't see the Creed saying "Christ rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures" to be saying "everything in the Creed must be according to Scripture". That is trying to force a meaning into the Creed that is not there. If they had meant "we can say nothing apart from Scripture" ... they would have said that. The language used was carefully chosen and very precise.


About that can of worms ... it occurs to me to wonder why they DID include "according to the Scriptures" as part of that sentence. I'm curious now whether they were referring to the Gospel accounts (certainly possible) or if they were perhaps affirming Christ's fulfillment of OT prophecy (also a possibility). At that late date, I do not have a definitive historic implication for the word "Scripture" in the same way that NT mentions of "Scripture" can generally be taken to refer to the OLD testament, since the New Testament canon was at best incomplete when such mentions were generally made. Please forgive my lack of precision. This is an "I wonder" kind of thing, not an argument. As I said, I focus the greater part of my spiritual pursuit on things other than history.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I've always felt that scripture must first and foremost be liturgical. I think that when it formed the basis of the prayer and celebration of the Eucharist then it functioned as the Scripture of the Church.

Exactly.

That's what I meant by synergy, and that the Faith was the starting point, not "Scriptures" which had yet to be written in the early decades at least.

No disrespect to Scripture is intended. It is one of the greatest gifts given by God, we love the Scriptures, honor them, read them, and nothing can contradict them and be true. But the New Testament did not predate the early Church, and the early Christian faith.

(Silly of me, but I grew up within a tradition that placed ALL the emphasis upon the Bible, and that was a bit of a shock for me when I first realized that Christ didn't pass out Bibles to His Apostles )

I would say that when Trullo and Nicea II made decisions which endorsed apparently contradictory canon listings they were in fact endorsing the Orthodoxy and Catholicity of the various communions in question. For whom some particular books or another had a part to play in their liturgies.

Perhaps. I can't argue - I don't know about the Catholic canon. I have had the same thoughts about the OO Churches that have a more extensive canon than the EO.

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

However, I don't see the Creed saying "Christ rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures" to be saying "everything in the Creed must be according to Scripture". That is trying to force a meaning into the Creed that is not there. If they had meant "we can say nothing apart from Scripture" ... they would have said that. The language used was carefully chosen and very precise. .

If the capital point of our faith must be based upon scriptures, even more the rest. So, if someone wants to restrain this sentence only to the O.T, how can we have certitude about creed, alone? What is the meaning of the creed, as the frame of theology, as the councils of Ephesus or Chalcedon showed us, without prevalence of New Testament, even over the creed?
The meaning of juxta scriptura is that theology mustn't contradict scriptures, no that we can say nothing a part the scriptures...

 

[~Anastasia~]

If the capital point of our faith must be based upon scriptures, even more the rest. So, if someone wants to restrain this sentence only to the O.T, how can we have certitude about creed, alone? What is the meaning of the creed, as the frame of theology, as the councils of Ephesus or Chalcedon showed us, without prevalence of New Testament, even over the creed?
The meaning of juxta scriptura is that theology mustn't contradict scriptures, no that we can say nothing a part the scriptures...

We may not be actually disagreeing.

Of course theology mustn't contradict Scripture.

And Scripture is primary over the Creed (except there cannot be a disagreement, so that statement is pretty much nonsense).

I can think of nothing within the Creed, offhand, that isn't found in Scripture. So really - what are we saying? The whole discussion is moot.

My point was that one cannot take "He rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures" to mean anything further than what it actually means. Even if what one pulls out of it is true (points of the Creed are found within the Scriptures).

I would argue that the reason for the agreement is that the same Faith was responsible for all: the beliefs of the early Church, the recognition of writings AS Scripture, and the interpretation of those writings and the faith itself to codify the beliefs found in the Creed.

If "Scripture" - meaning "New Testament Scripture" is the basis and foundation for everything - then what did the early Church do in the first decades of its existence, before those Scriptures had been written? It was apparently alive and growing and being firmly established in the Faith.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Perhaps. I can't argue - I don't know about the Catholic canon. I have had the same thoughts about the OO Churches that have a more extensive canon than the EO.

It is the reason why I think my Catholic Church needs to re-address the notion of canon in full ecumenical dialogue. We keep saying that we view the Orthodox faith in the Eucharist (liturgy) as conformable to our own. (In quibus Rerum Circumstantiis, V).

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

If "Scripture" - meaning "New Testament Scripture" is the basis and foundation for everything - then what did the early Church do in the first decades of its existence, before those Scriptures had been written? It was apparently alive and growing and being firmly established in the Faith.

NOW, we have the new testament, and our theology mustn't contradict it. That's all.

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

I'm convince that the creed's article about Christ's resurrection is the caution of the "juxta scriptura". If you don't agree, we don't have the same faith, that's all...

 

[prodromos]

If we believe that Jesus-Christ rose again from death, ACCORDING TO the scriptures, I cannot understand, if we admit the canonical book list's existence, how we can deny for Gospel, what it's necessary for his base, the resuscitation: the "juxta scriptura"?...

Weren't the Fathers referring to the Old Testament prophecies regarding Christ when they coined this expression?

Edit: Now I see Kylissa has raised the same issue before me. Must make a point of reading all subsequent posts before responding.

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

Weren't the Fathers referring to the Old Testament prophecies regarding Christ when they coined this expression?

Firstly, I don't care about the Fathers, but about logic.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Weren't the Fathers referring to the Old Testament prophecies regarding Christ when they coined this expression?

St Paul received the expression. It's the earliest Christian creed he claims to have received. 1 Corinthians 15:3.

 

[prodromos]

Firstly, I don't care about the Fathers, but about logic.

That explains the wide gulf between our respective faiths.

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

That explains the wide gulf between our respective faiths.

Logic hasn't prevalence over the Fathers in your theology?

 

[prodromos]

Logic hasn't prevalence over the Fathers in your theology?

Our theology is what has been revealed and handed down. Logic plays no part in it.