Sola Scriptura (2)

[Abrahamist]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Sola Scriptura"

 

[Montalban]

The "Anglican" criticism of tradition still remains problematical.

A church that changed under three different monarchs should be hard pressed to justify their criticism of tradition

 

[Albion]

The "Anglican" criticism of tradition still remains problematical.

A church that changed under three different monarchs should be hard pressed to justify their criticism of tradition

Let's be honest. Every church has changed. Earlier in my lifetime, the Russian Orthodox Church was headed by bishops who were not only atheists but KGB agents. To me that's a lot more significant than what you're trying to whip up. But I'm not going around all the time saying "change! change! They're changing something!" And as for unity vs division, nothing could be more "Byzantine" than the relations between the various Orthodox jurisdictions, not even Anglicanism--and that's saying something!

 

[Albion]

Dear Orthodox friends,
It's very late here, and I must turn in. If you want to continue this line of discussion, please wait until we're all back together online, OK?

 

[Montalban]

Let's be honest. Every church has changed. Earlier in my lifetime, the Russian Orthodox Church was headed by bishops who were not only atheists but KGB agents. To me that's a lot more significant than what you're trying to whip up. But I'm not going around all the time saying "change! change! They're changing something!" And as for unity vs division, nothing could be more "Byzantine" than the relations between the various Orthodox jurisdictions, not even Anglicanism--and that's saying something!

I had assumed that Anglican meant being in a large commune of Anglican churches. I am wrong about this. The Anglican church here in Australia was known as the Church of England in my youth and it is still a 'valid' answer on the census for people giving their religious affiliation. Thus one could be an Australian C of E. Being C of E was not exclusive to England or being English. I hadn't thought that it was so national.

I accept that the Russian Orthodox church was dominated by the Soviet Union - hence the break between them and the ROCOR (now healed). However, I'm not the one claiming that everything must be done with only regard to the Bible.

And I note that all churches have traditions that aren't found in the bible.

Furthermore I am unaware of changes in doctrine within my church. As far as I know the Anglican church changed from a small break with Henry VIII to a much more "evangelical" church under his son, to a move back to a more conservative church under Elizabeth. This included a change to the number of sacraments.

The Forty-Two Articles of faith of Edward VI were changed to Thirty-Nine under Elizabeth.

I have been pressing this point to get to the heart of one of the major objections against my position on tradition. This objection is, I believe, hard to reconcile from a church (Anglican) that has itself changed so often. However I will not labour this point further as I believe we're moving the thread more exclusively to examining this issue.

I would still be interested in knowing which Anglican church you belong to but will not press this again further.

 

[Thekla]

Dear Orthodox friends,
It's very late here, and I must turn in. If you want to continue this line of discussion, please wait until we're all back together online, OK?

Sounds good.

I can either paint myself out of the dining room to the computer room, or out to the stairs leading to bed. I choose the latter.

The Father is my hope, the Son my refuge, the Holy Spirit my protection.
Holy Trinity, glory to you.

God with all +

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

The problem with using Scripture as the only Ruler is that you get into the problem of differing interpretations of Scripture

Steve,


Please consider these points:


1. It really helps to stick with one topic at a time (with the topic of the thread). This thread is not about principles of hermeneutics. Nor is it about arbitration. It's about WHAT is embraced as the rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us. Of course, the whole thing is predicated on the embrace of ACCOUNTABILITY - that when there is a dispute in dogma, it's at least possible that one (or even both) could be wrong, hence the need for norming. THIS is where the dispute lies vis-a-vis the Rule of Scripture. The two primary protestors of this known to me (the RCC and LDS) passionately object to the practice NOT because they reject Scripture or because both agree with none on what is and is not Scripture but RATHER because both reject accountability (in the sole, singular, exclusive, unique, particular case of self alone - both passionately insist upon it for all OTHER teachers); it is seen by them as "flying in the face" of the insistence of self that self cannot be wrong, self is infallible (in dogma, anyway), since self (each self insists) CAN'T be wrong, norming is inappropriate in the sole case of self. Thus, the "rebuttles" are all defenses of how self is infallible rather than some attack on Scripture or some suggestion of some MORE inerrant, inspired, objective, knowable, ecumenically embraced alternative.


2. IF this thread were about hermeneutics and thus I could post about that, I'd note that no matter what the rule embrace, it would often need to be interpreted. Your rebuke applies - no matter WHAT is embraced. Since ALL choices have this aspect, it does not disqualify any given choice. But, I'd add this: interpreting a known entity, black and white objective words all human beings can know and can't change is preferrable to self insisting that self alone is the sole interpreter (CCC 87) of the Tradition of self (OOC Tradition or EOC Tradition or RCC Tradition or LDS Tradition)(CCC 85) hidden in the heart of itself (CCC 113, etc.) known only to self and embraced as reliable only by self.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[sculleywr]

.







Steve,


Please consider these points:


1. It really helps to stick with one topic at a time (with the topic of the thread). This thread is not about principles of hermeneutics. Nor is it about arbitration. It's about WHAT is embraced as the rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us. Of course, the whole thing is predicated on the embrace of ACCOUNTABILITY - that when there is a dispute in dogma, it's at least possible that one (or even both) could be wrong, hence the need for norming. THIS is where the dispute lies vis-a-vis the Rule of Scripture. The two primary protestors of this known to me (the RCC and LDS) passionately object to the practice NOT because they reject Scripture or because both agree with none on what is and is not Scripture but RATHER because both reject accountability (in the sole, singular, exclusive, unique, particular case of self alone - both passionately insist upon it for all OTHER teachers); it is seen by them as "flying in the face" of the insistence of self that self cannot be wrong, self is infallible (in dogma, anyway), since self (each self insists) CAN'T be wrong, norming is inappropriate in the sole case of self. Thus, the "rebuttles" are all defenses of how self is infallible rather than some attack on Scripture or some suggestion of some MORE inerrant, inspired, objective, knowable, ecumenically embraced alternative.


2. IF this thread were about hermeneutics and thus I could post about that, I'd note that no matter what the rule embrace, it would often need to be interpreted. Your rebuke applies - no matter WHAT is embraced. Since ALL choices have this aspect, it does not disqualify any given choice. But, I'd add this: interpreting a known entity, black and white objective words all human beings can know and can't change is preferrable to self insisting that self alone is the sole interpreter (CCC 87) of the Tradition of self (OOC Tradition or EOC Tradition or RCC Tradition or LDS Tradition)(CCC 85) hidden in the heart of itself (CCC 113, etc.) known only to self and embraced as reliable only by self.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

The problem still remains. It is not an issue of hermeneutics.

The Scripture can be interpreted many many different ways. Arius stated that the unity between the Father and the Son was a oneness of the same type as the oneness of a couple in marriage. In marriage, the wife is still a completely different entity and is not the husband. In the same way, stated Arius, Christ was only a representative of God, but not God Himself. When faced with this explanation, the Church, as a whole, not having a canon of scripture, was still able to soundly refute Arius, without needing the New Testament Scriptures as their ONLY source. In fact, they drew on the Pauline doctrine that the Church was the Pillar, gathered together, and made a creed which stated that the Lord Jesus Christ is of the "same essence" as the Father. Nowhere in scripture is this clearly stated, and yet we will tell any man who says otherwise that he is following a heretical teaching.

To say that the scripture is its own ruler is to say that it can identify itself as scripture. No book identifies itself or other books aside from the old Testament references in the New Testament. The only Scripture the Apostles were certain of was the Old Testament, and the Church still took hundreds of years to hammer out that canon. The authority of scripture is given to it by the community that wrote and taught it.

Without the tradition identifying scripture, Scripture is simply a buffet of pick and choose. Hence the "faith alone doctrine" which contradicts James 2

 

[wayseer]

It's not that the biblical texts can be interpreted 'many many ways' but HOW those texts are interpreted. Unless there is some systematic and critical method employed then any interpretation will inevitable turn to mush. Read, The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as a Sacred Scripture by Sandra Schneiders

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Scripture can be interpreted many many different ways.

Occasionally, although often the problem is with eisegesis, not exegesis.

The very same thing is true of Tradition. But of course, with Scripture - we at least have objective, knowable, unalterable, black-and-white reality to interpret whereas "Tradition" is a phantom, created by each denomination out of straw. But yes - all agree - it all needs to be interpreted.

Of course, as you know, this thread isn't about principles of interpretation, it's about WHAT is embraced as the most sound rule among us as we evaluate disputed dogmas among us.

To say that the scripture is its own ruler

I never did. I said in the Rule of Scripture, Scripture is the rule.

The only Scripture the Apostles were certain of was the Old Testament

If you reject the NT as Scripture, take that to a thread entitled, "Why I Reject the New Testament as Scripture." Make sense?






.

 

[steve_bakr]

Occasionally, although often the problem is with eisegesis, not exegesis.

The very same thing is true of Tradition. But of course, with Scripture - we at least have objective, knowable, unalterable, black-and-white reality to interpret whereas "Tradition" is a phantom, created by each denomination out of straw. But yes - all agree - it all needs to be interpreted.

Of course, as you know, this thread isn't about principles of interpretation, it's about WHAT is embraced as the most sound rule among us as we evaluate disputed dogmas among us.

I never did. I said in the Rule of Scripture, Scripture is the rule.

If you reject the NT as Scripture, take that to a thread entitled, "Why I Reject the New Testament as Scripture." Make sense?

.

Josiah,

Your last sentence completely misreads the message of the post you were responding to. The poster did not in any way deny the NT as Scripture, but merely pointed out that the NT had not yet been compiled and canonized at the time of the Apostles, and that Scripture references were to the OT.

 

[sculleywr]

Occasionally, although often the problem is with eisegesis, not exegesis.

The very same thing is true of Tradition. But of course, with Scripture - we at least have objective, knowable, unalterable, black-and-white reality to interpret whereas "Tradition" is a phantom, created by each denomination out of straw. But yes - all agree - it all needs to be interpreted.

Actually, Tradition is mentioned by Early Church writers including Clement, Irenaeus, and Clement (yes, there were two contemporaneous Clements). Scripture was not the rule of the Church in the first millenia. In fact, no Christian would have understood the doctrine of Sola scriptura until recently, because until recently (as in, the last 400-500 years since the first reformers), the doctrine was nonexistent. There is no Church Father who can be shown to preach ONLY scripture. People have taken Irenaeus and Clement out of context to try and prove they did, but there is plenty of evidence to prove otherwise.

Of course, as you know, this thread isn't about principles of interpretation, it's about WHAT is embraced as the most sound rule among us as we evaluate disputed dogmas among us.

Ok:

1. Nowhere in the Old Testament is there a requirement that the Messiah be God Himself
2. Nowhere in the New Testament does it specifically and clearly state that Christ is the same as God. ("I and the Father are one" Is the same basic structure in Greek as the statement "The two shall become one flesh")
3. It said "by man, ressurection came".

Thus, Christ was just a man.

By Sola Scriptura, you have no right or power by which to declare him a heretic. Why? Because he claims the same as you. He says "I picked up the Bible, and by common sense and the Holy Spirit, this is my understanding of the scripture."

At this point, the only way you can defend the nature of Christ as the God-Man is to refer to Tradition.

Without Tradition, the Christian is powerless to declare other interpretations wrong because they are just one of another 25'000 Sola Scriptura churches. If you don't like the doctrine, find another church and you are still just as Christian as I am, even though we disagree on salvation, on Christology, on the nature of the Spirit, and on everything else. I'm Christian as a Baptist, but you are just as much Christian as a Pentecostal despite our differences on CORE doctrines!

And we wonder why Agnostics and non-Christians look at us like we are insane. At least the other religions are consistent.

I never did. I said in the Rule of Scripture, Scripture is the rule.

So by the rule of scripture, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt which books are scripture. Not only do you have to prove they are scripture only from scripture, you have to do so, book by book, letter by letter. Every book needs to be proven by other established scriptures to be scripture.

Hint: You are powerless to do so. Without Tradition, you have no ruler by which to identify Scripture. How do you know your ruler is accurate if you measure it by itself.

If you reject the NT as Scripture, take that to a thread entitled, "Why I Reject the New Testament as Scripture." Make sense?

Ummm, should I start with your strawman, or should I focus on you shoving words into my mouth that I never actually wrote?

I'm not saying the NT isn't Scripture. I'm saying the reason we know it is scripture is because of Tradition. Refer to my previous section of this post to see why.

 

[Montalban]

It's not that the biblical texts can be interpreted 'many many ways' but HOW those texts are interpreted. Unless there is some systematic and critical method employed then any interpretation will inevitable turn to mush.

You've just contradicted yourself

Read, The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as a Sacred Scripture by Sandra Schneiders

Why?

 

[Montalban]

Josiah,

Your last sentence completely misreads the message of the post you were responding to. The poster did not in any way deny the NT as Scripture, but merely pointed out that the NT had not yet been compiled and canonized at the time of the Apostles, and that Scripture references were to the OT.

It's a Protestant 'misreading' that comes up all the time - the same posters over and over again insist that a rejection of sola scriptura is a rejection of scripture

It's just one of a few straw-men arguments that's continually re-hashed

 

[sculleywr]

It's not that the biblical texts can be interpreted 'many many ways' but HOW those texts are interpreted. Unless there is some systematic and critical method employed then any interpretation will inevitable turn to mush. Read, The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as a Sacred Scripture by Sandra Schneiders

ummm, If systematic methods were needed to interpret the writings of simple men living simple lives declaring a simple message, then there would be no simplicity to it. Systematic theology is in and of itself a tradition.

 

[Montalban]

ummm, If systematic methods were needed to interpret the writings of simple men living simple lives declaring a simple message, then there would be no simplicity to it. Systematic theology is in and of itself a tradition.

Well his proposition was self-contradictory anyway. To say that it can't be interpreted in many ways, but 'how' it is interpreted makes no sense.

 

[wayseer]

There are many ways of interpreting texts but unless you approach such interpretation systematically and critically you will end up with simply opinion. And no one can debate opinion.

 

[Montalban]

There are many ways of interpreting texts but unless you approach such interpretation systematically and critically you will end up with simply opinion. And no one can debate opinion.

That doesn't work. There are many ways to interpret text THROUGH systematically and critically interpreting it!

This is why sola scriptura is so dangerous - it depends on circular logic - those that read the bible think that they have the logical/systematic/critical reading of it - and all other interpretations are 'opinion'. The illogic of the method should serve as a warning to people

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There are many ways to interpret text

1. Sola Scriptura is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule when evaluating disputed dogmas among us. It is not a principle of hermeneutics. Did you know that? If you want to discuss principles of hermeneutics, start a thread on that.


2. NO MATTER WHAT rule is embraced, it will at times need to be interpreted, thus you cannot rebuke ONE possible rule for this. RCC Tradition, OOC Tradition, EOC Tradition and LDS Tradition all often need to be interpreted, as well - thus according to you also must be rejected.


3. The principle objectors to Sola Scriptura known to me (the RCC and LDS) do NOT object to it because none agrees with itself on what is and is not Scripture. The canon isn't the issue, ACCOUNTABILITY is the issue. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming do so because they reject norming by any rule (other than self - at most). Sola Scriptura is predicated on the idea that when there are debated dogmas, it's possible that one "side" or the could COULD be wrong (perhaps even both) - thus, the need for norming (evaluating for correctness) and for a norma normans (what will be the mutually embraced standard). THIS IS WHAT THE RCC AND LDS OBJECT TO. The theoretical possibility that their own unique, distictive dogmas COULD be wrong - and thus SHOULD be accountable. What the RCC and LDS offer is this: "I alone insist that I alone CANNOT be wrong in my dogmas since I alone insist that I alone am infallible in this, I alone insist that when I alone speak, Jesus is speaking!" The objectors object to Sola Scriptura ("The Rule of Scripture") because they object to accountability in the singular, exclusive, sole, unique case of itself alone.

those that read the bible think that they have the logical/systematic/critical reading of it - and all other interpretations are 'opinion'. The illogic of the method should serve as a warning to people

You have it EXACTLY OPPOSITE, 180 degrees from the reality. It's the RCC that insists that it and it itself alone is the sole, individual, infallible, unaccountable, authoritarian "interpreter" of the Scripture hidden in the heart of it itself alone (CCC 85 and 113). Friend, search all the rest of your days on earth, search 24/7, you will NOT find a single Catechism of a single Protestant denomination that does that, that does what you rebuke. Just one: the RCC. It insists on self being exclusive in this and be held as unaccountable in this - thus it rejects accountability. To anything. By anyone. It mandates quiet, docilic, submission to it itself alone instead. Thus, its objection to Sola Scriptura. "I CANNOT be wrong in dogmas, thus I'M not accountable - to Scripture or anything else for that matter."







.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Actually, Tradition is mentioned by Early Church writers including Clement, Irenaeus, and Clement (yes, there were two contemporaneous Clements).

Which Tradition? The RCC's in 2012 or in 1500 or in 1000? The OOC's Tradition? The EOC Tradition? LDS Tradition. WHICH? Could you please copy/paste to here the full and verbatim, word-for-word content of this "Tradition" so all the world knows - exactly, objectively, what this "Tradition" is? Or is it a phantom or a creation of self? Never mind.... it has nothing to do with this topic.


Did they suggest that whatever "it" is (?), it is to serve as the norma normans in the evaluating of various disputed dogmas among us?

the doctrine of Sola scriptura

There is no such doctrine. Never has been. It's a praxis. It's about what we DO.

There is no Church Father who can be shown

NOT THAT IT MATTERS A BIT (Sola Scriptura is not a practice that we that those a long, long, long time ago SHOULD have used but not now, it's about us.... here.... now). But if what your denomination's "Fathers" said matters, here's just a few....


St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+ca.195):

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
(Against Heresies, 3:1.1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 414.)


St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

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.
(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)



St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.
(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.) Note that this "Father" uses the exact, verbatim, word-for-word identical definition of Sola Scriptura - a long time before Luther and Calvin used the identical, verbatim, same words to describe the practice.



St. Gregory of Nyssa:

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.
(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)



St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430):

Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.
(On the Unity of the Church, 16, quoted in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], p. 159.)



St. Augustine of Hippo:

What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behooves to be wise,” but be wise, as he says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith.”
(On the Good of Widowhood, 2, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. III, p. 442. The quotation is from Romans 12:3.) Again, notice that Augustine gives the exact, verbatim, identical statement that Luther and Calvin later would - it's called Sola Scriptura.




St. John Chrysostom (c.347-407):

Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer to [our own] calculation; but in calculating upon [theological] facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things...
(Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XII, p. 346.)



St. John Chrysostom:

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.
(Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 96, p. 118.)


St. John Chrysostom:

They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.
(Homily 13 on Genesis.)


St. John Chrysostom:

There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.
(Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles [NPNF 1, 11:210-11; PG 60.243-44])


St. Basil the Great (c.329-379):

They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases [persons], and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore 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.
(Letter 189 [to Eustathius the physician], 3, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. VIII, p. 229.)



St. Basil the Great:

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.
(The Morals, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, p. 204.)


St. Basil the Great:

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.
(On the Holy Spirit, 7:16.)


St. John of Damascus (c.675-c.749):

It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments.
(On the Orthodox Faith, I:2, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 37.)




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.