Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I never said I approached is a purely historical document. But for the purpose of historically understanding the Early Church, I thought it was appropriate. Are you saying the New Testament can't be taken as a historical document?Yes, you're right that approaching the NT as a purely-historical document is your undoing.
Hey, I'm still around. Didn't mean to leave you. And I didn't take your posts as digs at Protestantism.Thanks for your kindness. I really do feel ganged up on today. I mean, I did ask for it, and I'm mostly enjoying it, but what happened to all the Orthodox and Catholic folks who were in my corner yesterday? There are still a couple of you here; thanks!
The funny thing is, I didn't mean my post to be antagonistic. I am really looking for answers here. Protestants take my words to be a critique of Protestantism, when really what I'm trying to ask is, more than anything else, how can a Protestant deal with these ambiguities in Scripture? No matter how many times I'm told to "interpret Scripture with Scripture" -- I really have no idea how to do that or see how it's possible. Scripture doesn't tell us everything. Maybe it tells us "everything we need for salvation," but it doesn't really tell us everything we need to have an understanding of the faith and practice of the Early Church.
I kind of thought "Scripture Vs. History" would be a sensational title... but I guess it's attracted the wrong kind of sensation!
Perhaps I am not being clear. There is a hierarchy of authority and it begins with Scripture but also includes patristic sources. Meaning if one cannot find where where there is a definite answer in Scripture and it is not mentioned or addressed in our confessions (which are normed by scripture as a secondary source) then we look to the ECF for guidance. That said our confessions nor tradition is on the same level as Scripture.But I don't really see how this is possible or intellectually honest. As I said in the OP, there are a lot of gaps -- places where we have to interpolate, where a lens of "Scripture interpreting Scripture" isn't enough to inform us. The question is, where do we draw that interpolation from? From the earliest sources? From the musings of later theologians? From our own feeble consciences? It seems your tradition has a lot of answers, but how can it answer this?
Yes, I acknowledge that's basically the case, though I think they would consider the term "sola ecclesia" pejorative. It's not the "Church alone." It's the Church, through Christ's appointed teachers, as servants to Scripture and Tradition, the revelation that's been given to them to teach. So it comes down basically to whether we accept whether a Church has the authority to teach or not.
What denomination are you now? A lot of Protestants here (Lutherans and Anglicans mostly) are insisting to me that "sola scriptura does not mean a rejection of tradition". Or is "infallible" the distinction you are making here?
Thanks for your kindness. I really do feel ganged up on today. I mean, I did ask for it, and I'm mostly enjoying it, but what happened to all the Orthodox and Catholic folks who were in my corner yesterday? There are still a couple of you here; thanks!
The funny thing is, I didn't mean my post to be antagonistic. I am really looking for answers here. Protestants take my words to be a critique of Protestantism, when really what I'm trying to ask is, more than anything else, how can a Protestant deal with these ambiguities in Scripture? No matter how many times I'm told to "interpret Scripture with Scripture" -- I really have no idea how to do that or see how it's possible. Scripture doesn't tell us everything. Maybe it tells us "everything we need for salvation," but it doesn't really tell us everything we need to have an understanding of the faith and practice of the Early Church.
I kind of thought "Scripture Vs. History" would be a sensational title... but I guess it's attracted the wrong kind of sensation!
Scripture in and of itself is not divine. Scripture is not a god to be worshiped and idolized. God can and does certainly speak to us *through* scripture, but is not limited to speaking solely through scripture. God can also speak through prayer, Christian meditation, prophets, preachers, hymns, liturgy, etc. All of these methods are expressions of God's Word when he speaks to us through them.
Sorry, Meg, I'm trying to internet less for Lent!Thanks for your kindness. I really do feel ganged up on today. I mean, I did ask for it, and I'm mostly enjoying it, but what happened to all the Orthodox and Catholic folks who were in my corner yesterday? There are still a couple of you here; thanks!
The funny thing is, I didn't mean my post to be antagonistic. I am really looking for answers here. Protestants take my words to be a critique of Protestantism, when really what I'm trying to ask is, more than anything else, how can a Protestant deal with these ambiguities in Scripture? No matter how many times I'm told to "interpret Scripture with Scripture" -- I really have no idea how to do that or see how it's possible. Scripture doesn't tell us everything. Maybe it tells us "everything we need for salvation," but it doesn't really tell us everything we need to have an understanding of the faith and practice of the Early Church.
I kind of thought "Scripture Vs. History" would be a sensational title... but I guess it's attracted the wrong kind of sensation!
Oh boy. You did not just say that.
I can prove it to you that God’s Word is divine.
Check out this blogger article:
Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God
Only God himself is divine. The tools he uses to communicate with us in various ways are not divine. To put the tool on the same level or on a greater level than God is idolatry.
Maybe you missed these parts of the Bible.
“Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures” (Romans 1:2).
“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:15).
Even ground can be made holy the presence of God.
“And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground” (Exodus 3:5).
Even the ark of the covenant was called holy.
“And said unto the Levites that taught all Israel, which were holy unto the LORD, Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build; it shall not be a burden upon your shoulders: serve now the LORD your God, and his people Israel,“ (2 Chronicles 35:3).
Are all Bible’s that have the words “Holy Bible” on the cover lying?
Being designated as holy is not the same as being divine. Being holy means to be set apart by God for some purpose. Being divine means to *be* a god.
God is both holy AND divine. Scripture is holy for a particular purpose *by* God, but is not divine and not to be worshiped *as* a god.
Interesting, I sort of had stumbled on that sort of thing accidentally, but didn't know the name of it. On other message boards, I would spend some times talking about Sola Scriptura and other parts of Protestantism that I had some issues with. But I tried to be even handed, and mentioned areas of Orthodoxy that I thought were problematic to show that I was not just some one sided ideologue. But boy did that get me into trouble! In a personal email one EO guy did use the "uncovering the nakedness of my brother" type line (I mentioned how the Russian Church patriarch had compromised with the Communists) aka Sergianism. And I had to correct him, that it was not the same as revealing a private sin; because this is a matter of history that even his Church acknowledges on some of their official web sites!
And I had a similar thing with my ex-wife when we were married. In a discussion, in a similar vein, I mentioned how the ancient Coptic monks burned the library of Alexandria. And my wife, had similar words for me, and I mentioned how I got that fact from Coptic.Church.net!
What I actually didn't realize before I started looking into Christianity is that the earliest Christians didn't have Scripture. They didn't have the Bible to reference. Even after, once the canon was decided on, the vast majority of Christians didn't have copies until much later.Understanding how the earliest Christians lived and interpreted Scripture takes the Early Church Fathers, the Saints, and the living Tradition of Liturgy, prayers, devotions, and practices.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?