Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

Wgw · Oct 5, 2015

Albion said:
What gave you THAT impression???

Where I fear you are running aground is on the unpleasant multiplicty of iterpretations claiming to be sola scriptura. Recall St. Irenaeus on the Mosaic of the King (which as an argument was not intended to confront Sola Scriptural which was of course unknown in the Second Century, but which has the coincidental effect of discrediting it; it amuses me to think of St. Irenaeus fighting for Orthodoxy from beyond the grave).

Root of Jesse · Oct 5, 2015

Wgw said:
The Orthodox Church has always disringuished between Holy Tradition, of which the Scriptures are a component (and thus obtain theirnauthority from the Church rather than vice versa, which is inherently the correct Scriptural interpretation and impliction), and traditions, which encompass those aspects of ecclesiastical and secular life which are derived primarily from cultural values; these traditions are acceptable as long as they are not in opposition to sacred Tradition.

I would assume/hope that Roman Catholicism takes a similiar perspective.

Yes, we do. Exactly, and well stated.

Root of Jesse · Oct 5, 2015

BobRyan said:
Very much the way the Jews viewed their own tradition and scriptures in Mark 7.

I think that is the part that is not news.

in Christ,

Bob

Actually, not. We place our authority on God, the Jews placed their authority on the Sanhedrin.

Root of Jesse · Oct 5, 2015

BobRyan said:
BobRyan said: ↑
Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The first 6 verses - negates nothing in that verbatim quote of Christ - as He demonstrates the process of sola scriptura for us all to read.

But - always open to someone with a fact - if you have some fact showing that the first 6 verses negates that verbatim quote of Christ's teaching in vs 6-13 - by all means "show your work" as they say in math class.

Well then you have done well not to quote yourself here - placing it along with that verbatim quote of Christ that I posted from Mark 7:6-13.

Perhaps some other time you will be inclined to make your case.

in Christ,

Bob

But not in an in-context verbatum quote, capice? When you do that, it makes sense, perfectly, when you don't it makes sense imperfectly.

Wgw · Oct 5, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
Yes, we do. Exactly, and well stated.

Very good, so this is one more compelling reason for us to not be in schism.

Root of Jesse · Oct 5, 2015

Standing Up said:
Traditions that various groups like RC, EO, or OO, hold vary and are contradictory to each other.

Actually, this is seldom true.

Traditions are all found outside of and apart from the scripture record.

Untrue as well. Sacred Tradition is based on Scripture.

For example, RC (Magisterium) believes it is the sole interpreter of scripture.

Untrue as well. They are the sole authority on the meaning of Scripture. Interpreters can influence the meaning, but don't determine the meaning. And actually, I don't believe EO/OO disagree on "RC" meaning of Scripture. They differ in practices, but not substantially in meaning.

EO and OO and P would disagree. This is what makes Tradition so tricky. No one agrees on what it is.

You're speaking of practices here.

Besides, the Traditions extant in Paul's time aren't followed anyway (like a floating "easter"). So Tradition is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to bite.

I give this post 4 1/2 Pinocchios.

thecolorsblend · Oct 5, 2015

Albion said:
What gave you THAT impression???

You cited law and, specifically, the Constitution as something which requires interpretation. There is a judicial authority in the United States tasked with interpreting the Constitution. Citizens are welcome to read into the Constitution what they will but ultimately the final authority on the matter is the Supreme Court.

I believe the same is true of Scripture. To maintain unity there must be a final authority to provide interpretation. And frankly, I believe even Protestants would agree with me on that. The issue though is many of them have hitched their wagon to graduates from "Bible college" (or, worse, to individuals) while I've placed my trust in an institution which has studied Sacred Scripture for millennia.

At this point, I think the question is less about whether or not Scripture must be interpreted and more about who ought to do the interpreting.

Root of Jesse · Oct 5, 2015

Wgw said:
Holy Tradition does not specify what to wear on Sunday, except that the Pauline epistles mandate head coverings for women.

I did not mean OO tradition, because the Athanasian canon is a shared tradition used by almost all Christians aside from a few neo-Gnostics who enjoy reading The Gospel of Thomas or The Tripartite Tractate before their afternoon LSD trip. It is a tradition which even you use in all probability, because you could not attempt (unsuccessfully) to declare scripture as all-sufficient without some idea as to what Scripture is.

At any rate OO tradition is not a grab-bag of books; the only books most OO families have are a Bible and a prayer book / Psalter such as the Coptic Agpeya (in which the 150 Psalms are read daily along with corresponding Gospel passages and appropriate prayers). Even then strictly speaking one does not need these books; historically before the printing press they were too expensive, and thus people memorized the Psalter, for example. There are typically four scripture lessons in a Coptic or Syriac Orthodox Sunday morning liturgy, in addition to those from Matins (making a total of six or seven), and more scripture in total is read in the average Oriental Orthodox church on a single Sunday than one might hear in many Protestant churches in an entire month.

And even Catholics read four, one OT, one Psalm, one Epistle, one Gospel. And if you pray the divine office, you get near enough 100% of the Bible in a year. If you don't, it's three years.

Root of Jesse · Oct 5, 2015

BobRyan said:
Until we notice that in real life - John and his readers were all reading scripture long before the "Athanasian Canon" label came along almost three centuries later.

That's right no NT saints 'waiting for three centuries' to read scripture.

As Christ points out.

Yeah, they were reading the OT in Greek, mostly, and listening to Sacred Tradition.

Root of Jesse · Oct 5, 2015

Wgw said:
There are in fact no substantial doctrinal differences between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox; the disagrement over Chalcedon concerns only a few petty sectarians primarily concentrated in ROCOR, Serbia, and the Metropolitanate of Pireaus on the EO sode, and a minority of Copts and Ethiopians on the OO side.

Between the Catholics and the Orthodox there are differences but these relate to polity and ecclesiology; the Roman Rite has some theological but these are largely absent in the Eastern Catholic churches, but this does not really represent a divergence of Tradition.

There is no disagreement between the apostolic churches on the core Nicene section of tradition, and no meaningful disagreement between East and West until the Filioque Controversy, which is again not a matter of Tradition but rather a matter of polity and ecclesiology (to what extent is an autocephalous church bound by the canons of prior ecumenical councils, and to what extent does the primus inter pares posess the ability to unilaterally rule on these matters?)

The Anglican Church also embraces Tradition, along with Scrioture and Reason, as one of three sources of authority. So your position is in fact inconsistent with your own denomination. There are a great many Anglo Catholics and High Church Anglicans who would bitterly object to the stance you are taking against Tradition.

But then again, Anglicanism at its best is essentially Orthodox except to the extent that latitudinarianism prevents it from divesting itself of the low church set.

And the Protestants say, "Darn!"...

Wgw · Oct 5, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
Untrue as well. They are the sole authority on the meaning of Scripture. Interpreters can influence the meaning, but don't determine the meaning. And actually, I don't believe EO/OO disagree on "RC" meaning of Scripture. They differ in practices, but not substantially in meaning.

Not even praxis so much as polity. The Eastern Catholics are liturgically hard to differentiate from the Orthodox. With the exception of the Maronites, who have no direct liturgical equivalent, and the Melkites, who are unfortunately beset with several bishops whose competence at serving the Byzantine Rite is dubious at best; for example the Melkite bishop in Caracas has a lamentable penchant for the electric guitar and the marimba, I am realiably informed.

On the other hand to our great embarassment there are several Coptic parishes that have taken to Praise and Worship bands, whereas Coptic Catholics to my knowledge have not gone down that road. The Coptic parishes I refer to are in extra-diocesan areas without an optimal degree of direct episcopal oversight.

In both the Melkite and Coptic cases, what is transpiring is npt a divergence in praxis but rather liturgical abuse. Strictly speaking, a violation of the rubrics that is canonically illicit.

Root of Jesse · Oct 5, 2015

Standing Up said:
455 and 1054 and 1500's argue against this. Same with the Quartodeciman controversy of 155, 175, and 195. As well baptism by heretics in 225.

But to your comment, so if not Tradition, then which (RC or OO) has the Scriptural primacy position correct?

Nicea forced the Roman observance with Constantine as enforcer. But again to the point, the "floating easter" was the observance in Christ's time. So, for those who loudly claim we should follow Tradition, then do so. Forget the fixed easter and observe the following Pascha of Paul's time.

Why would you NOT celebrate the Resurrection of Christ on Sunday?

Root of Jesse · Oct 5, 2015

Standing Up said:
They observed the floating three days/nights of Passover, first day unleavened bread, first fruit. They observed Sunday because of Pentecost's giving of the Spirit. Only later, divorced from their roots, did some conflate the two.

He was the guarantor that they'd follow Rome's custom of observing Sunday after the equinox after the full moon.

"... it [common observance on Sunday] has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent, ..."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.x.html

Funny you should mention the Sunday dress as somehow important. Anyway, we all know they do reject scripture alone as the sufficiency of all things salvific. Their increasing communion is moot to the question of what is truth and what is not (salvific). Nonetheless, just like the Pascha issue, if one rejects scripture alone to accept tradition, one should at least observe it as Christ and the apostles did. If not, one might say the Tradition crowd talks, but fails at the walk.

Right. You mean like taking Jesus at His word in John 6?

thecolorsblend · Oct 5, 2015

Standing Up said:
Funny you should mention the Sunday dress as somehow important. Anyway, we all know they do reject scripture alone as the sufficiency of all things salvific. Their increasing communion is moot to the question of what is truth and what is not (salvific). Nonetheless, just like the Pascha issue, if one rejects scripture alone to accept tradition, one should at least observe it as Christ and the apostles did. If not, one might say the Tradition crowd talks, but fails at the walk.

What I took from his post is that the differences between the two truly is as superficial as their choice of vestments. There's no significant doctrinal difference at play. If the differences between them includes vestments and esoteric issues concerning polity and ecclesiology, it can be fairly said that they are very close indeed.

The relevance there is you claim they all "follow tradition" but have somehow reached different destinations with respect to core theological positions. His post shows that to be not true at all.

Wgw · Oct 5, 2015

At the risk of sounding conceited it might be nice if someone could actually condescend to post an interesting counterargument for us to enjoy shredding together. There is a rather likeable Lutheran chap who made a post in defense of icons in the moronic iconoclast thread who I suspect could offer a more formidable argument in defence of the sola scriptura position and it would be more enjoyable to directly attack.

We could proceed on the basis of pointing out the numerous ways in which Luther was unable to tear himself from tradition altogether, then explore the various ill-advised changes Luther either made or wanted to make in his Bible translation, which had the effect of rendering it entirely unreliable.

Root of Jesse · Oct 5, 2015

Wgw said:
The statements here are not terribly relevant given that as an Orthodox I am not in communion with the Pope of Rome. The Pope of Alexandria, yes, but the Pope of Alexandria is just one of several autocephalous archbishops of equivalent authority; the Patriarch of Antioch Ignatius Aphrem II Karim is the leader of my church. In Oriental Orthodoxy we also lack Canon 28 of Chalcedon which has the effect in Eastern Orthodoxy of granting the Ecumenical Patriarchate certain judicial privileges as well as jurisdiction over "the lands of the Barbarians."

In any event, both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox reject the Roman Catholic papacy in very strong terms; in particular, the doctrine of papal infallibility and the relative weakness of RC bishops other than the Pope. In Orthodoxy, diocesan bishops are autonomous in their dioceses and cannot be removed by the Patriarch, Catholicos, or Metropolitan. Indeed, once in the Coptic church when a Pope of Alexandria did not wait for a delayed diocesan bishop before commencing a liturgy in that bishop's diocese, the bishop on arrival smashed the Pope's mitre, and was not deposed; the point was taken that the Coptic Pope had acted incorrectly.

Personally, I believe the bishops make themselves weak. They are on par with the Bishop of Rome, after all. But when German bishops dissent, and present possible schism, they weaken the entire Magisterium.

I do not neccessarily agree with the opinions expressed above by the reformers that the Roman Popes is or was the anti-Christ; the worst Roman Popes were heresiarchs on a par with Simon Magus (who may have been referred to as the anti-Christ by St. John). So in the sense that every heresiarch is the anti-Christ one could say that about Leo X for example, but I cannot associate an office with the anti-Christ, as this seems a laughable proposition that would apply for example to St. Peter.

Yes, there were wicked popes, placed in office by bishops with political ambition, who only wanted to rake in wealth for their own families. These popes, though, seldom had time to derail the Church, because they were too self-interested.
It is also true that an office cannot be the anti-Christ. If one believes this, then he must also believe in apostolic succession, I think.

What is more, if Pope Leo X can be called the anti-Christ on the grounds of being a heresiarch, than so too can John Calvin, for the Synod of Dositheus branded him as such. For that matter I believe one could say the same about Ellen White, who was a heresiarch in the sense of being a false prophet who organized a denomination on certain principles of faith explicitly condemned as heretical by the ancient ecumenical councils.

Interestingly John Wesley would potentially not fall into these categories by virtue of having apparently been ordained in secret as a bishop by the Greek Orthodox bishop Erasmus of Arcadia in 1763. This does not make him a legitimate Orthodox bishop in an ordinary sense, as a proper consecration of a bishop requires three existing bishops as consecrators, although this can be waived in emergencies.

Wgw · Oct 5, 2015

thecolorsblend said:
What I took from his post is that the differences between the two truly is as superficial as their choice of vestments. There's no significant doctrinal difference at play. If the differences between them includes vestments and esoteric issues concerning polity and ecclesiology, it can be fairly said that they are very close indeed.

The relevance there is you claim they all "follow tradition" but have somehow reached different destinations with respect to core theological positions. His post shows that to be not true at all.

I believe he was actually rather cretinously referring to my mention of St. Paul's requirement of head coverings for women as opposed to questions of vesture. Our vestments of course are derived from the fourth century court dress of Roman imperial officials, combined with the use of the chasuble (phelonion or phayno in the East) in honor of the martyrdom of St. Paul. This is why both the Western and Eastern rites feature common elements of vesture like the cassock, alb/surplice, stole and so on, albeit with a confusing difference in terminology.

Root of Jesse · Oct 5, 2015

Wgw said:
St. Jerome was obviously not a mainline Protestant but was rather a fourth century hermit, translator and opponent of Origenism; there was some what of a bitter row between Orogen and the unfortunately named Lucifer of Cagliari, the bishop of Sardinia.

Come on! Lucifer means "Light Bearer"!

Root of Jesse · Oct 5, 2015

Albion said:
But look, if something that all churches agree is of God describes itself--repeatedly--as the best, what sense does it make to insist that there's significance in the fact that it doesn't also include a superfluous disclaimer to the effect that something else isn't as good as the best?

Who says Scripture isn't the best? It's equal to Sacred Tradition. There's two bests, just like there's two best home run hitters in the National League this year.

Ah, then that would be the cause of your misunderstanding.

Sola Scriptura doesn't say that everyone is equally capable of understanding it, just that it is the truth. I don't understand the US Constitution like a lawyer does, but I still think it's the law of the land. I don't understand half of what my doctor says when describing my illnesses, but I don't conclude, therefore, that medical science isn't any better than alchemy.

Now we're back on the same point--misunderstanding Sola Scriptura to be a guarantee that all men will read it the same way.

And if it's not the truth, how do we determine what else is the truth...if we apply this same test? We cannot. And why not? Because there is no other methodology that is free from the same criticism that is laid at the door of Sola Scriptura. If we were to trust "Holy Tradition," which each Catholic (non Sola Scriptura) church claims to follow, we'd be faced with the reality that each one has its own version of what Tradition supposedly is saying! And if we were to go by ongoing prophesy, as some churches do, they also have a welter of contrasting "revelations" that differ from denomination to denomination.

Wgw · Oct 5, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
Personally, I believe the bishops make themselves weak. They are on par with the Bishop of Rome, after all. But when German bishops dissent, and present possible schism, they weaken the entire Magisterium.
Yes, there were wicked popes, placed in office by bishops with political ambition, who only wanted to rake in wealth for their own families. These popes, though, seldom had time to derail the Church, because they were too self-interested.
It is also true that an office cannot be the anti-Christ. If one believes this, then he must also believe in apostolic succession, I think.

Agreed. I am disinclined to regard any of the Roman bishops as the anti-Christ given that the sinister ones were in general not sufficiently clever. And one can usually find more sinister figures inside and outside the Church to apply that label to.

There was for example a profoundly disagreeable chao in the second century known as Paul of Samosata. And then we had Eusebius of Nicomedia...horrors. And then Nestorius!

Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

Do You Adhear to Sola Scriptura?

Yes

No

Unsure

Other

Pray For Brussels!

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Pray For Brussels!

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Pray For Brussels!

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Pray For Brussels!

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Pray For Brussels!

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Pray For Brussels!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency