Sola Scriptura

[Iollain]

Could you explain how it is false dichotomy?


It's not just history that disagrees with me, it is people back then who i disagree with and if i had a time machine i would go back there and have a formal debate to show them they were wrong.

 

[Philip]

Could you explain how it is false dichotomy?

" 'Bible' or 'Bible and Tradition' " creates two unnatural divisions.

The outer division is at the 'or': 'Bible' or 'Bible and Tradition'. It not possible to trust the Bible alone. Some interpretation of the Bible must occur. This interpretation either comes from those who came before you (ie, it is a tradition) or you are the first person to have it (ie, a new tradition). Thus, you are trusting the Bible and a tradition.

The inner division occurs at the 'and': 'Bible' or 'Bible and Tradition'. It is not possible to separate the Bible from tradition since it is from tradition that we know which books are part of Scripture and which are not. We can not trust the Bible without first trusting that it contains the proper texts.

It's not just history that disagrees with me, it is people back then who i disagree with and if i had a time machine i would go back there and have a formal debate to show them they were wrong.

As I said, it was a misuse of the Scriptures. The point is that Scripture, like anything else, can be misused.

 

[Iollain]

" 'Bible' or 'Bible and Tradition' " creates two unnatural divisions.

The outer division is at the 'or': 'Bible' or 'Bible and Tradition'. It not possible to trust the Bible alone. Some interpretation of the Bible must occur. This interpretation either comes from those who came before you (ie, it is a tradition) or you are the first person to have it (ie, a new tradition). Thus, you are trusting the Bible and a tradition.

The inner division occurs at the 'and': 'Bible' or 'Bible and Tradition'. It is not possible to separate the Bible from tradition since it is from tradition that we know which books are part of Scripture and which are not. We can not trust the Bible without first trusting that it contains the proper texts.



As I said, it was a misuse of the Scriptures. The point is that Scripture, like anything else, can be misused.

It has to be an or thing for me cause i believe the Bible is the written word of God. And when i think of the Apostles having statues is just cracks me up.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

So, where are the instructions on these necessities to be found? What is the authority of this source?

The source is "The Church" of course... the authority... Christ!

These instructions were "Traditioned" (handed down) verbally from the Apostles.

If your looking for written instructions on baptism, the "didache" (instructions from the Apostles) would be the earliest reference.

Some would say that because the instructions are not given in detail in scripture that the methods and substances to be used are unimportant or unnecessary for salvation.

But not everything about Christianity is in scripture... as the Church would surely tell you....

The point is... over time, scriptures become smaller and smaller, the canon becomes shorter as people throw out or disregard what the don't agree with... as the evil one would have it...

In a 1000 years the Holy Bible will have been reduced to a pamphlet.

The only way to maintain the Truth is through the living Church.

Forgive me....

 

[mythbuster]

To deviate from the apostles teaching and introduce traditions is to add leaven to the otherwise pure meal as described the Lord in Matthew 13.33. The Lord repeatedly warns of this leaven and Paul urges us to purge out the old leaven.
A perfect example of such mixture is the practice of celebrating Easter and Christmas, both holidays of pagan origins. Another blatant example of leaven is that Buddha (Siddhartha), known as Saint Jehosaphat, is in both the major branches of Christianity.
With simplicity and purity toward Christ, holding the Bible as the complete word of God, we should reject all these things.

 

[Albion]

To deviate from the apostles teaching and introduce traditions is to add leaven to the otherwise pure meal as described the Lord in Matthew 13.33. The Lord repeatedly warns of this leaven and Paul urges us to purge out the old leaven.
A perfect example of such mixture is the practice of celebrating Easter and Christmas, both holidays of pagan origins. Another blatant example of leaven is that Buddha (Siddhartha), known as Saint Jehosaphat, is in both the major branches of Christianity.
With simplicity and purity toward Christ, holding the Bible as the complete word of God, we should reject all these things.

So what you seem to me to be illustrating there is that traditions include some items that are contrary to scripture and some that are just plain false. I'd add that there are some that are neither, and it is these that pose the greatest problem for us looking at this issue, i.e. those that have no Biblical basis, are not directly contrary to the Bible, but are nevertheless put on a par with the Bible under the vague category of "Tradition." An example of that would be the Assumption of Mary. To make folklore equal to the Bible is very dangerous, in my opinion, and it's that "same as scripture" element that makes this an issue.

 

[Albion]

Racer: So, where are the instructions on these necessities to be found? What is the authority of this source?

The source is "The Church" of course... the authority... Christ!.

Which is it to be--Church or Christ?

These instructions were "Traditioned" (handed down) verbally from the Apostles.

What's the proof of that? There are many items of belief that don't appear in Church history for hundreds, even many hundreds of years after the Apostles, so that suggests that there was no "handed down." But even if we confine ourselves to the concepts that are the oldest, how do you know which are from the Apostles and which are merely human ideas creeping into the Church?

But not everything about Christianity is in scripture... as the Church would surely tell you....

Very true; not everything about Christianity is in scripture. HOWEVER, all that is to be demanded of the believers is in scripture. To be a believer in scripture it is necessary, I would think, also to believe scripture when it says that very thing.

The only way to maintain the Truth is through the living Church.

How do you know that? Why not, for instance, just keep the same Bible books?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Which is it to be--Church or Christ?

The Authority was given to "The Church" by Christ. You see that as two seperate things... I do not.

What's the proof of that? There are many items of belief that don't appear in Church history for hundreds, even many hundreds of years after the Apostles, so that suggests that there was no "handed down." But even if we confine ourselves to the concepts that are the oldest, how do you know which are from the Apostles and which are merely human ideas creeping into the Church?

The fact that there are false traditions does not negate the fact that there are true "Traditions" (capitol T). You need "The Church" to tell you the difference, otherwise your lost in the mire of questions.

Very true; not everything about Christianity is in scripture. HOWEVER, all that is to be demanded of the believers is in scripture. To be a believer in scripture it is necessary, I would think, also to believe scripture when it says that very thing.

I disagree, and so does "The Church" that decided on what was to be included in canon.

How do you know that? Why not, for instance, just keep the same Bible books?

O.K. - Which books? - Who decides? - I believe we should keep the entire canon laid down by the councils.

I suppose the difference is..... I trust "The Orthodox Church" to tell the truth.

Others don't and that's why you question things...

Forgive me...

 

[Kripost]

To deviate from the apostles teaching and introduce traditions is to add leaven to the otherwise pure meal as described the Lord in Matthew 13.33. The Lord repeatedly warns of this leaven and Paul urges us to purge out the old leaven.
A perfect example of such mixture is the practice of celebrating Easter and Christmas, both holidays of pagan origins. Another blatant example of leaven is that Buddha (Siddhartha), known as Saint Jehosaphat, is in both the major branches of Christianity.
With simplicity and purity toward Christ, holding the Bible as the complete word of God, we should reject all these things.

Actually, Easter (or rather, Pascha) has its roots in Jewish practices. Also, there is no Saint Jehosaphat.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Albion.....

post #53

Forgive me...

 

[mythbuster]

Actually, Easter (or rather, Pascha) has its roots in Jewish practices. Also, there is no Saint Jehosaphat.

Kripost et al,
I googled saint josaphat and got the below hits plus many more. The spelling varies but the traditional story is there. It is the story of Buddah.

How about this section of the Gospel of Mark chapter seven.
And the Pharisees and the scribes questioned Him, Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with common hands? And He said to them, Well has Isaiah prophesied concerning you hypocrites, as it is written, "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart stays far away from Me;7 But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as teachings the commandments of men.'' 8 While leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men.9 And He said to them, You nicely set aside the commandment of God that you may keep your tradition.13 Thus you deprive the word of God of its authority by your tradition which you have handed down. And amany things similar to these you do.


JOSAPHAT

Also known as
Ioasaph; Iasaph; Joasaph; Yudasaf
Memorial
27 November (Roman calendar); 26 August (Greek calendar)
Profile
With Saint Barlaam, one of the protagonists in a Christianized retelling of the story of Siddhartha Buddha that was popular in the Middle Ages.

Many people in India were converted by Thomas the Apostle. Astrologers foretold that the son of King Abenner would one day become a Christian. To prevent this, Abenner began persecuting the Church, and had his son placed under house arrest. In spite of these precautions, Barlaam, a hermit of Senaar, met him, and converted him to the Faith. Abenner tried to pervert Josaphat, but failed, and shared the government with him. Abenner himself later became a Christian, abdicated the throne, and became a hermit. Josaphat governed for a time, then abdicated, too. He travelled to the desert, found Barlaam, and spent his remaining years as a holy hermit. Years after their deaths, the bodies Josaphat and Barlaam were brought to India; their joint grave became renowned by miracles.

Even the name Josaphat appears to a corruption of the original Joasaph, which is corrupted from the middle Persian Budasif (Budsaif=Bodhisattva); a form of the story appears in the "Golden Legend" of Jacobus de Voragine.
Additional Information
Ecole Glossary, by Norman Hugh Redington
Changing Master Narratives in Midstream, by Graeme MacQueen
Gnostic Apostle Thomas: Chapter 21
Barlaam and Ioasaph, by Saint John Damascene
For All The Saints
Catholic Encyclopedia


Josaphat (saint)
[Categories: Saints]

Also see.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/J/Jo/Josaphat_(saint).htm

Josaphat (saint)

Saint Josaphat is said to have lived and died in the 3rd century or 4th century in India. His story appears to be in many respects a Christianized version of Siddhartha Gautama's story.

According to legend, a King Abenner or Avenier in India persecuted the Christian church in his realm, founded by the Apostle Thomas. When astrologers predicted that his own son would someday become a Christian, Abenner had the young prince Josaphat isolated from external contact. Despite the imprisonment, Josaphat met the hermit Saint Baarlam and converted to Christianity. Josaphat kept his faith even in the face of his father's anger and persuasion. Eventually, Abenner himself converted, turned over his throne to Josaphat, and retired to the desert to become a hermit. Josaphat himself later abdicated and went into reclusion with his old teacher Baarlam.

The story of Josaphat and Baarlam was popular in the Middle Ages, appearing in such works as the Golden Legend. Although Josaphat and Baarlam were canonized in the Greek Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church, there is no evidence that either ever existed.

Wilfred Cantwell Smith traced the story from a second to fourth-century Sanskrit Mahayana Buddhist text, to a Manichee version, to an Arabic Muslim version, to an eleventh century Christian Georgian version, to a Christian Greek version, and from there into Western European languages. He traced Josaphat's name from the Sanskrit term bodhisattva via the Middle Persian bodasif.

Author Holger Kersten proposes an alternate explanation: that "Josaphat" is derived from the Arabic "Judasaf" or "Budasaf", as written in an Urdu version of the tale. He ties this name to Yuz Asaf, a Muslim holy figure identified with Jesus. This idea, which proposes Jesus escaped crucifixion and died in India, was first introduced to the west by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

See also: List of saints,

 

[Albion]

Albion.....

post #53

Forgive me...

Not sure what you are trying to communicate there. Is it a question about the Bible giving us the instruction on the way to Baptise?

I would say that it clearly does. Water is needed. The invocation of the triune God is clearly indicated. Generally speaking, those are the necessary indgredients in a valid baptism that chuches both Catholic (East and West) and Protestant (except for those in the Anabaptist tradition) accept.

No, the Bible doesn't explicitly say what the officiant shall wear or how the furniture should be arranged in the church for the service, but as for the Bible being adequate for our instruction in how to Baptise, I say that it certainly does. The optionals, the non-essentials, are of course the subject of "Tradition," but the controversy about "Tradition" is solely over using it as a means of deducing what is essential, not optional.

 

[BBAS 64]

just to check, did you know that Sola Scriptura teaches/says that all things necessary for salvation are found in Scripture?
so your question neither proves nor disproves Sola Scriptura.

Good Day, Little

 

[Oblio]

How about this section of the Gospel of Mark chapter seven.
...

Tradition of the Pharisees, totaly unrelated to the Holy Tradition of the Church. Part of why the KJV (and interpretations like it) are deficient, in that they are translated with a Protestant mindset. In this case, using the word tradition when it is shown in an unfavorable light and using other words, such as teachings, when it is not.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Not sure what you are trying to communicate there. Is it a question about the Bible giving us the instruction on the way to Baptise?

I would say that it clearly does. Water is needed. The invocation of the triune God is clearly indicated. Generally speaking, those are the necessary indgredients in a valid baptism that chuches both Catholic (East and West) and Protestant (except for those in the Anabaptist tradition) accept.

No, the Bible doesn't explicitly say what the officiant shall wear or how the furniture should be arranged in the church for the service, but as for the Bible being adequate for our instruction in how to Baptise, I say that it certainly does. The optionals, the non-essentials, are of course the subject of "Tradition," but the controversy about "Tradition" is solely over using it as a means of deducing what is essential, not optional.

So your saying that the Sealing of the Holy Spirit and Chrismation after immersion is non-essential. You won't find "how to" instructions on the completion of Baptism in scripture.

Is Baptsim essential? Yes and No... if we are to live a complete and whole life inside "The Church" then it is..... but Christ grants salvation to whom he will.... for instance the thief on the cross had not been baptised....

Most all of the "how to" instructions were handed down verbally Bishop to Bishop... "Traditioned".... like handing off the baton in a relay race.

Therefore scripture can't contain all that is essential for Christian living..... However salvation (as with the thief) has nothing to do with scripture per say....

Forgive me.....

 

[Albion]

So your saying that the Sealing of the Holy Spirit and Chrismation after immersion is non-essential.

Certainly. I'm not even saying that immersion is essential. I'm just taking the position of most churches that water and the invocation of the triune God, which we find clearly in the New Testament, are essential for a Baptism.

You won't find "how to" instructions on the completion of Baptism in scripture.

We just covered them.

Most all of the "how to" instructions were handed down verbally Bishop to Bishop... "Traditioned".... like handing off the baton in a relay race.

Custom.

Therefore scripture can't contain all that is essential for Christian living

Well, we've yet to come up with something that isn't.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Certainly. I'm not even saying that immersion is essential. I'm just taking the position of most churches that water and the invocation of the triune God, which we find clearly in the New Testament, are essential for a Baptism.



We just covered them.



Custom.



Well, we've yet to come up with something that isn't.

In your opinion.....

But you know it's yours.... so in the immortal words of Spongebob Squarepants....

Good Luck with that!

Forgive me....

 

[Albion]

In your opinion.....

That's right. My opinion is different from your opinion.

But there are a lot more who share mine than do yours.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

That's right. My opinion is different from your opinion.

But there are a lot more who share mine than do yours.

You might want to check your numbers....

Does it bother you to know that you are attempting to find the WIDE gate when the path is narrow?

Forgive me....

 

[mythbuster]

Tradition of the Pharisees, totaly unrelated to the Holy Tradition of the Church. Part of why the KJV (and interpretations like it) are deficient, in that they are translated with a Protestant mindset. In this case, using the word tradition when it is shown in an unfavorable light and using other words, such as teachings, when it is not.

Strong has the word for tradition in Mark to be paradosis, he says it means "a handing down" and it is also translated as teaching, in KJV at least, in other places.

For teach he has didaskos, a different word altogether. Translated as doctrine and teaching.

The tradition and teaching of the Pharisees is in essence the same as the "Holy Tradition of the Church" because their source is not divine rather fallen religious humanity. The Lord's top opposers were religious men keeping their traditions. The same was true for Paul. We must turn from such traditions and return to Christ with purity and simplicity. We can do this by His mercy by returning to the one true God of the Bible, without which we have and are nothing.

We do not reject the experiences of the Lord by others who have gone before us and we stand on their shoulders for much of our appreciation and understanding. We also thank the Lord for men such as Martin Luther who recovered justification by faith, the Bible, and who withstood the darkness of the historical Christianity of his day.

Pagan religions always have a goddess, the mother god. And so by adding to the Bible a goddess has been introduced into Christianity in the person of Mary. We strongly reject this and all the other traditions, teachings, and practices.

A closing word from Paul:

Circumcised the eighth day; of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 As to zeal, persecuting the church; as to the righteousness which is in the law, become blameless. 7 But what things were gains to me, these I have counted as loss on account of Christ. 8 But moreover I also count all things to be loss on account of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, on account of whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as refuse that I may gain Christ.