Sola scriptura

sculleywr · Aug 12, 2016

pat34lee said:
You just listed the problem. The only reason you haven't seen
the answer is that you're looking inside the box, or the system.

Leave Babylon. Martin Luther had the right idea, but when he
was kicked out of the church, he took most of the teachings
with him. So did every other denomination.

The instant you said "leave Babylon" you lost all credibility. Anyone who claims that any person who professes Christ as Lord is not a Christian has no place naming Christ as their leader. Martin Luther created new teachings that were foreign to the Apostles and Christ. They had no origin in Christ or His Apostles.

But like I said, you have no credibility because Babylon=foil:

sculleywr · Aug 12, 2016

AnticipateHisComing said:
The OP is a most simpleminded attack on SS. My post posits it as a way to defend Catholic dogma originating outside of scripture. Your post addresses nothing to my point. Different interpretations of scripture is a completely different issue. Further, the fact that denominations that claim to follow SS have included traditions in their doctrines may be hypocritical, but this is irrespective of the OP's simple argument; SS is invalid.

SS is invalid because it's impossible. You NEVER have Scripture as either the highest or the only authority in the Church, because of the simple fact that the Canon is over Scripture, and the Canon is not in Scripture, so tradition is over Scripture no matter WHO or WHAT you are if you claim to be Christian. Unlike the Qur'an's claim, the Scripture did not come down delivered in a single bound volume. It wasn't compiled until hundreds of years after the words were written, in many cases. In point of fact, many of the books make no claim to being divinely inspired, and several do not say who wrote them at all.

We, therefore, cannot treat Scripture like the Muslims treat the Qur'an. For Muslims, the Qur'an is the highest authority because it came pretty much directly from the angels according to their teaching. We do not have the same belief, which makes the position of SS extremely impossible.

Constantine the Sinner · Aug 12, 2016

Philip_B said:
I don't really have a problem with this, unless you are suggesting that there are things that Jesus taught and passed on to his disciples which are not found in the Canon of the New Testament (the 27 Books). If you are suggesting that, then you may be in danger of some form of gnosticism.

The Church existed before one dot of the New Testament was penned. Indeed the New Testament is the library of the Church's Books, and we have decided as the Church to accept their authority. There are a number of books that are accepted in the Hebrew Canon which are largely accepted as the Old Testament. Both the EO and the RC also accept the deuterocanonical books, which Anglican receive as instructive but not for doctrine, and these books formed part of the Septuagint (a greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures) and most likely the scriptures that were best known to the writers of the New Testament.

At the time of the European Reformation there was an argument on the part of some that the importance of scripture had been undervalued, and various approaches came to the for, including Sola Scriptura (by scripture alone) and Prima Scriptura (by scripture read in the light of the tradition).

This is clearly understood in the opening to 4G (The Gospel of John) en ho logos, en archee en pros ton theon. It is clear that the writer of the Gospel is drawing Christ into the advent of Creation, as the word (logos) thundered in the darkness, Let there be light. I believe it is a mistake to confuse the word (as in the canon of scripture) and the Word (as in the person of Christ) to whom scripture bears witness.

English can be a catastrophic language to do theology in.

The difference is between the Logos of God and the Logia of God, the latter refers to Scripture.

I think Christ did teach quite a bit not covered by Scripture. All of his teachings are, at the very least, alluded to in Scripture, but I don't think it is an exhaustive record of them. Scripture doesn't, for instance, directly forbid polygamous marriage, even though Christ taught monogamous marriage for the non-celibate.

What kind of Anglican are you?

Constantine the Sinner · Aug 12, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
The Lutherans and the Reformed have had an open canon since the beginning.

There are Protestants that actually would not disagree. Karl Barth would be a good example, but there are many others.

The issue I see with Holy Tradition is that it's not a thing, at least not the way that traditionalist Orthodox understand it (I hesitate to call them fundamentalist, but that's often what they do). It is not a thing that you or I can treat in a positivistic fashion, like an object. And it's tied up in messy history. At times, what became the Orthodox position was actually contested (Arianism vs. Trinitarianism would be a good example).

All you've knocked down here are the more conservative or fundamentalist forms of Protestantism.

Unless you are contesting that Christ taught Arianism, it was never Orthodox. There have been those who have tried to spread it, but it was always an introduced teaching, not one handed down by Christ.

Soyeong · Aug 12, 2016

Constantine the Sinner said:
Do you believe the Apostles were infallible? How do you respond to the Incident at Antioch?

No, the Apostles were not infallible and the Incident at Antioch would indeed show that Peter was fallible. The circumcision group had been wanting to require Gentiles to follow their man-made traditions in order to be saved (Acts 15:1). Their traditions forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles (Acts 10:28, which was in violation of Leviticus 19:34), so by moving to eat with them, Peter's actions were giving credence to their traditions and essentially telling Gentiles that they needed to follow those traditions in order to be saved, which is why Paul immediately reiterated that we are saved by faith.

Nothing in Holy Tradition (what Christ taught) contradictions Scripture. It predates New Testament Scripture. New Testament Scripture was written to record it, but no section of it claims to be an exhaustive record. Christ ordained the Apostles teachers, he himself didn't write anything that's recorded. Thus, Christ imparted Holy Tradition, and the Apostles later wrote accounts, that doesn't mean these accounts or Epistles are claiming to be an exhaustive record of all of Christ's teachings.

This is the second time that you've argued against the Bible being an exhaustive record of all Messiah's teachings when I have never made the claim that it was, and in fact when I have agreed that it was not an exhaustive a record and have cited a verse that shows that it is not an exhaustive record. Further, that point is just as irrelevant the second time you made it as it was the first time. This is the second post that I find myself repeating what I said in my previous post, so I am beginning to wonder whether you are more interested in criticizing something you don't understand than in understanding it. You can say that what Messiah taught was Holy Tradition, but when you say that what you follow today is Holy Tradition, then you are equivocating because the traditions that you follow are not the same set of traditions that he taught.

Geralt · Aug 12, 2016

you speak lie a mystic who says one thing but actually makes it a loophole to mean another, just get real and straight to the point. scripture is not a person who can 'witness'. unless of course you mean, evidence or proof in its basic meaning.

what it is is God's written revelation of himself.

but you will always resort to the line 'it is only a witness'.

so get straight now for the sake of the other readers, what other 'witnesses' do you still have in mind that points to the Truth which is Christ, for obviously you have something hidden you like to put forward. this is obviously the reason you want to question the scripture canon and such, that is one among the many witnesses.

Constantine the Sinner said:
Scripture is not Truth itself, Scripture is a a witness to Truth. All of Scripture is valid witness to Truth because it is all God's teachings. The New Testament is distinct in that it stems from the teachings God in incarnate form, in person.

FireDragon76 · Aug 12, 2016

Constantine the Sinner said:
Unless you are contesting that Christ taught Arianism, it was never Orthodox. There have been those who have tried to spread it, but it was always an introduced teaching, not one handed down by Christ.

You do realize that Constantine himself was an Arian?

My point is that good theology is rarely a matter of "the Bible says", "the Fathers say" or "Tradition says". Expanding from the Bible to Holy Tradition as the context can give you the Fathers to proof-text from, often times... but its shoddy theology. Fr. Aidan Kimel has talked about this occasionally on his blog, Eclectic Orthodoxy. The context of the past must be understood before it can be made relevant to the present, otherwise we just engage in eisegesis.

Good theology in short is doxology, it rings of truth, it is eloquent and not barbaric... it doesn't need authoritarian appeals. It in itself is authoritative.

AnticipateHisComing · Aug 12, 2016

sculleywr said:
SS is invalid because it's impossible. You NEVER have Scripture as either the highest or the only authority in the Church, because of the simple fact that the Canon is over Scripture, and the Canon is not in Scripture, so tradition is over Scripture no matter WHO or WHAT you are if you claim to be Christian. Unlike the Qur'an's claim, the Scripture did not come down delivered in a single bound volume. It wasn't compiled until hundreds of years after the words were written, in many cases. In point of fact, many of the books make no claim to being divinely inspired, and several do not say who wrote them at all.

We, therefore, cannot treat Scripture like the Muslims treat the Qur'an. For Muslims, the Qur'an is the highest authority because it came pretty much directly from the angels according to their teaching. We do not have the same belief, which makes the position of SS extremely impossible.

You have a most dim view of God's word and lack appreciation of God's protection of it in the Bible throughout history. I really doubt that most Catholics would profess what you do; that scripture is not the highest authority.

You offer up a similarly simple "proof" as the OP that SS is invalid because the Bible is the result of words handed down. This proves nothing and you continue to ignore my points; that the opposing view that there are incontrovertible truths outside of scripture is the real debate.

Philip_B · Aug 12, 2016

Constantine the Sinner said:
What kind of Anglican are you?

An Anglican kind of Anglican. I am a member of the Anglican Church of Australia which is in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. In general terms I would say I do not do labels, particularly well.

I can tell you I no longer say the Filioque when I recite the Nicene Creed, and that is a decision and a position I have reached for myself.

Constantine the Sinner · Aug 12, 2016

Philip_B said:
An Anglican kind of Anglican. I am a member of the Anglican Church of Australia which is in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. In general terms I would say I do not do labels, particularly well.

I can tell you I no longer say the Filioque when I recite the Nicene Creed, and that is a decision and a position I have reached for myself.

So you're in Full Communion with the same-sex marriage Anglicans (America and Canada)?

If you see the filioque as heresy, then do you admit that your church teaches heresy?

I don't mean to belabor the Anglican tradition. It might have had a very questionable start, but I think a lot of it is beautiful (in fact there is an Orthodox version of it, with an Orthodox Book of Common prayer and a Liturgy of Saint Tikhon, which an Orthodox version of the Anglican liturgy). There probably would have been an autocephalous (independent of any outside authority) Orthodox Church of England if it weren't for female ordination, and the problem that Anglicans like to leave most doctrine up to individuals instead of actually standardizing an official position.

Have you read any John Milbank?

Philip_B · Aug 12, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
You do realize that Constantine himself was an Arian?

I think it is true to say that Constantine was baptised by the Arian Bishop Eusebius, however it should also be noted that Constantine called the 1st Council of Nicaea where the Arians did not do very well. I think it is a bold assertion to suggest that Constantine's faith position was of necessity Arian, or simply Arian.

Constantine the Sinner · Aug 12, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
You do realize that Constantine himself was an Arian?

My point is that good theology is rarely a matter of "the Bible says", "the Fathers say" or "Tradition says". Expanding from the Bible to Holy Tradition as the context can give you the Fathers to proof-text from, often times... but its shoddy theology. Fr. Aidan Kimel has talked about this occasionally on his blog, Eclectic Orthodoxy. The context of the past must be understood before it can be made relevant to the present, otherwise we just engage in eisegesis.

Good theology in short is doxology, it rings of truth, it is eloquent and not barbaric... it doesn't need authoritarian appeals. It in itself is authoritative.

I think you better substantiate your claim that a canonized saint was an Arian. The only evidence of that was the guy who baptized him was an Arian--let me remind you here that Constantine exiled that guy after he dissented from Nicaea, and only lifted that exile after the guy renounced Arianism.

Good theology is what is 100% harmonious with what Christ taught, it either is, or it isn't. If it isn't, it's bad theology.

FireDragon76 · Aug 12, 2016

Yes, but how do we know what Christ taught? The Bible is the only objective record we have of Christ's words that has generally been held by Christians in all times and in all places (Vincent of Lerins standards for catholicity).

FireDragon76 · Aug 12, 2016

Even after Nicea, semi-Arians tried to reconcile their views with the council, and there was a lot of debate for a long while afterwards until Chalcedon.

In the west, Arianism flourished centuries afterwards. That's part of the reason the fliioque happened, and why the minor doxology had an addendum.

Constantine the Sinner · Aug 12, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
Yes, but how do we know what Christ taught? The Bible is the only objective record we have of Christ's words that has generally been held by Christians in all times and in all places (Vincent of Lerins standards for catholicity).

If you believe Christ is God, then you trust his judgement in choosing several teachers to keep his teachings intact and pass them on. He said that the Gates of Hades would not prevail over his Church, so we can presume the Body that kept alive his teachings is intact. If we need a source for his teachings, we look to that body, and see what has been consistently taught as Christ's teachings since ancient times.

Constantine the Sinner · Aug 12, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
Even after Nicea, semi-Arians tried to reconcile their views with the council, and there was a lot of debate for a long while afterwards until Chalcedon. That's part of why Chalcedon happened.

In the west, Arianism flourished centuries afterwards. That's part of the reason the fliioque happened, and why the minor doxology had an addendum.

The filioque was added purely because Henry II of Germany demanded it from the Pope Benedict VIII, prior to that it was strongly resisted by Rome in the West to the extent that the Pope Leo III had the Nicene Creed engraved on silver tablets without the filioque to make sure it would never be changed. While the filioque might have a thing in various regions, Arianism had zero to do with the Pope's endorsement of it, it was officially adopted long after Arianism was dead in the West.

Again, I'm not sure how any of this is of relevance, unless you are suggesting whether or not Christ taught Arianism is in question.

AnticipateHisComing · Aug 12, 2016

Constantine the Sinner said:
New Testament Scripture was written to record it, but no section of it claims to be an exhaustive record.

True as scripture explicitly says it does not record all that Jesus said. As such you totally miss the point. The purpose of scripture is not to tell all truths, only a sufficient number of them. You have yet to prove your position, that other "traditions" are required and can be considered to be incontrovertible truths.

Constantine the Sinner said:
Christ ordained the Apostles teachers, he himself didn't write anything that's recorded.

You obviously don't understand the concept of Jesus working with the Holy Spirit to direct the apostles what to write.

John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 15:26 [ The Work of the Holy Spirit ] “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.

John 16:12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

Philip_B · Aug 12, 2016

Constantine the Sinner said:
So you're in Full Communion with the same-sex marriage Anglicans (America and Canada)?

If you see the filioque as heresy, then do you admit that your church teaches heresy?

I don't mean the belabor the Anglican tradition. It might have had a very questionable start, but I think a lot of it is beautiful (in fact there is an Orthodox version of it, with an Orthodox Book of Common prayer and a Liturgy of Saint Tikhon, which an Orthodox version of the Anglican liturgy). There probably would have been an autocephalous (independent of any outside authority) Orthodox Church of England if it weren't for female ordination, and the problem that Anglicans like to leave most doctrine up to individuals instead of actually standardizing an official position.

Have you read any John Milbank?

Settle Sister Settle.

1. The Church I am a member of is part of a Communion whose members include ECUSA and ACC. You are no doubt aware that the communion has sanctions in relation to ECUSA on this issue, and it is likely that something will be said about Canada as well. I sit not in judgement, and I walk not in their shoes. I was kind of struck by something of the holiness of the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA talking about it in all humility.

2. I can see that you like to take things one step further. I did not say that the Filioque is heresy. I said I don't say it when I recite the Nicene Creed. I will go on to say I believe that it should not be part of the Nicene Creed. A theology of double procession finds some conform in the pages of Holy Scripture. I believe that there is a lot of confusion in the area between greek and latin, between ultimate source and point of emanation. I have written 150 pages on it which I don't plan to replicate here.

3. There is also a Western Right Orthodoxy under the patronage of the Patriach of Moscow of which I have heard who use a rite they call sarum, largely devised from Anglican Sources. Maybe they are related.

4. Yes, you are quite right, the Anglican Church does ask its members to use their brains and other gifts, not just join a pack. That is part of the reason I feel it is OK not to say the filioque.

5. No. I just looked at him on Wikipedia. He looks interesting.

You will find that I am not black and white. Please don't try to label me any more than I label myself.

Constantine the Sinner · Aug 12, 2016

AnticipateHisComing said:
True as scripture explicitly says it does not record all that Jesus said. As such you totally miss the point. The purpose of scripture is not to tell all truths, only a sufficient number of them. You have yet to prove your position, that other "traditions" are required and can be considered to be incontrovertible truths.

You obviously don't understand the concept of Jesus working with the Holy Spirit to direct the apostles what to write.

John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 15:26 [ The Work of the Holy Spirit ] “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.

John 16:12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

What is a sufficient number of dogmatic truths, relative to entirety of dogmatic truth, and how do you determine this? For me, the entire dogmatic truth is what is sufficient, anything less is a distortion.

The Christian conception of inspiration is not the Muslims conception where the words are simply dictated. You can tell this, since the Epistles and Gospels all have different styles indicative of different authors. The Holy Spirit ensured the Church did not teach heresy, and regulated what the Apostles wrote or dictated, but he didn't dictate to them.

Constantine the Sinner · Aug 13, 2016

Philip_B said:
Settle Sister Settle.

1. The Church I am a member of is part of a Communion whose members include ECUSA and ACC. You are no doubt aware that the communion has sanctions in relation to ECUSA on this issue, and it is likely that something will be said about Canada as well. I sit not in judgement, and I walk not in their shoes. I was kind of struck by something of the holiness of the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA talking about it in all humility.

2. I can see that you like to take things one step further. I did not say that the Filioque is heresy. I said I don't say it when I recite the Nicene Creed. I will go on to say I believe that it should not be part of the Nicene Creed. A theology of double procession finds some conform in the pages of Holy Scripture. I believe that there is a lot of confusion in the area between greek and latin, between ultimate source and point of emanation. I have written 150 pages on it which I don't plan to replicate here.

3. There is also a Western Right Orthodoxy under the patronage of the Patriach of Moscow of which I have heard who use a rite they call sarum, largely devised from Anglican Sources. Maybe they are related.

4. Yes, you are quite right, the Anglican Church does ask its members to use their brains and other gifts, not just join a pack. That is part of the reason I feel it is OK not to say the filioque.

5. No. I just looked at him on Wikipedia. He looks interesting.

You will find that I am not black and white. Please don't try to label me any more than I label myself.

Sanction doesn't break communion, you are in full communion with Christians what are conducting same-sex marriages insides churches.

Scripture doesn't teach a double-procession. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son. That is, the Son is the dative, the Father is the genitive, these are very distinct. The Nicene Creed is a translation of the Greek, and so in this context, the filioque is genitive, which is not Scriptural.

"Use their brains" here means freedom to deny things like the Virgin Birth.

Christianity is, however, black and white.

Sola scriptura

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Orthodox Colitis Survivor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Well-Known Member

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency