Sola scriptura

[Constantine the Sinner]

No. Not exactly. While the ink on the page was put forth by men, it's true author is God.


...

Are you suggesting God has authored documents outside the Bible, then? Since the documentation of what compromises the canonical books is outside the Bible.

 

[Albion]

This statement isn't in the Bible.

Perhaps at this point you should tell us, as an advocate of Holy Tradition, what you find lacking in the Bible.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I will ask other Orthodox here if this is true teaching of Orthodoxy. Because IMHO this is some really screwed up beliefs and from what I know of the Orthodox, admittedly very limited, this is way off base.

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Tradition

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Also, folks here need to understand that the Bible is a divine book that is backed up by a lot of evidences (unlike any other written work in human history). Here are a few I discovered that hopefully should knock your socks off.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/general-list-of-biblical-evidences.7833944/


...

 

[sculleywr]

Canon is not over scripture; scripture would still exist even without canon.
Please be careful about who you call liars.....

Scripture can exist without the canon in the same way your body could exist without DNA. The Canon is the DNA that defines what is the Scripture. If the DNA is different, then the body will be different. Even a small 1% change in DNA can change an entire organism into a completely different SPECIES. The Canon is the DNA that says "this is Scripture". Well, to be more accurate, the Canon functions as the proteins that identify the parts of the body as being Scripture to other parts of the body and outsiders.

The Canon, however, since the analogy breaks down because it is imperfect, is that which identifies Scripture. It defines Scripture. The Canon is what says "This is Scripture, that is not, this is Scripture, that is not".

Changing the Canon changes Scripture, which changes doctrine. That's why people altered the Canon, first in the 5th century, when the Jews changed the Old Testament Canon to remove books the Church was using, then later in the Protestant Reformation to remove books the traditional churches were using.

The Canon defines Scripture, therefore it is over Scripture. The Scripture would only exist as several books and letters circulating around with people unable to determine which books were and weren't Scripture, making them build their foundation out of a patchwork of indecision and uncertainty. Without a canon, there would be even LESS power than Protesants already have, since they lack the power to do anything about the heresies of the JW's, Mormons, and innumerable cults that have cropped up because of the impotence of SS gatherings. And yes, that's on the West, because before SS, these groups would come and go. Mormons and JW's set up shop and probably aren't going to go anywhere any time soon. Many divisions start and set up permanent residence in Protestantism. And the Protestants are powerless to stop the division because they are not even honest about the fundamental fact that they have a higher authority than Scripture on earth in the form of their own traditions.

 

[Albion]

Are you suggesting God has authored documents outside the Bible, then? Since the documentation of what compromises the canonical books is outside the Bible.

All you're talking about is a council's decision to recognize the books of the Bible. Those men didn't write any of them, you know, nor are any of the "documents" associated with these councils considered to be the word of God or divine revelation or anything of the sort.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The difference between traditional churches and Protestants is that the former are honest with themselves about it while the latter lie to themselves about it.

If you consider "traditional churches" to be Orthodox I believe your entire statement could be flipped around....That traditional churches have lied to themselves and Protestants have put things back on track......

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Perhaps at this point you should tell us, as an advocate of Holy Tradition, what you find lacking in the Bible.

The Bible doesn't proscribe polygamous marriage.

The Bible doesn't elaborate on Christ's more complex teachings regarding prayer (for instance, if you see visions in prayer, how do you know if they're from the Devil, from God, just figments of your imagination, or even evidence that you've lost your marbles?)

The Bible doesn't offer Christ's teachings on how hermits are to live, or how to determine who's ready for this lifestyle.

The Bible doesn't elaborate on what the light is from things like the Transfiguration, and Moses's radiance (so powerful he had to wear a veil), whereas Christ taught about all this.

There are many things.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Are you suggesting God has authored documents outside the Bible, then? Since the documentation of what compromises the canonical books is outside the Bible.

Where in the world did you get this idea?
Also, stop and think for a moment. How is your religion easily reached without an internet connection?
Your religion is not easily duplicatable so as to be reached by most people.
The Bible is the most efficient way for God to reach people and to hold them accountable to His Word.
For Jesus says men will be judged by His word.
I just do not see a man suffering in his hotel room who needs God will stumble upon an Orthodox person or church in his time of need.
Yet, a Bible could be there for him in his hotel room for him to read.


...

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

All you're talking about is a council's decision to recognize the books of the Bible. Those men didn't write any of them, you know, nor are any of the "documents" associated with these councils considered to be the word of God or divine revelation or anything of the sort.

Then how do you consider their choice of canon valid? The choice, as per your own words, is purely from man, not God.

 

[sculleywr]

As a result of your belief: You are either trusting in man written documents (that cannot truly be trusted or verified with 100% accuracy - unlike the Bible) or you have a time machine. Either way...

Let God be true and every man be a liar (Romans 3:4).


....

Ok, then since the names of the gospels and the identification of all the books of apostolic origin was done by men, let's assume the Table of Contents is full of lies, 66 lies in your Bible on that one page. Since it was MEN who declared them Scripture (Christ didn't name all of the books, and we can't be certain that really was Christ since we depend on MEN who told us those were the words of Christ), then we can't trust the Bible itself because for all we know, we could have been lied to.

As to 100% accuracy, was Christ entering Jericho when he healed the blind man outside the city or leaving? Matthew says entering. Mark says leaving. You said 100% accuracy. Absolute arguments are ALMOST always flawed, as is the case in the fact that since we don't have the originals, we can't verify your claim that we can verify the Scripture with 100% certainty. Since we can't even say with certainty which books are Scripture, we certainly can't verify if what is in them is true. And since you reject all opinions of man, then I assume you just call them Gospels 1, 2, 3, and 4, instead of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, since it was Irenaeus who told us who wrote them, fully 2 generations after Christ's ascension and the death of the Apostles! Since we're letting every man be a liar, in a strictly 100% absolutist sense, this is the only conclusion.

 

[sculleywr]

No. Not exactly. While the ink on the page was put forth by men, it's true author is God.


...

Except the Canon isn't in Scripture. Especially not your canon, which wasn't even made until the 14th or 15th century.

The canon is outside of Scripture.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

If you consider "traditional churches" to be Orthodox I believe your entire statement could be flipped around....That traditional churches have lied to themselves and Protestants have put things back on track......

Protestants don't even worship God in a traditional way. Just compare Protestant to Orthodox worship in sound.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Except the Canon isn't in Scripture. Especially not your canon, which wasn't even made until the 14th or 15th century.

The canon is outside of Scripture.

And you know this how?
By time machine or historical documents from men (whereby you have to trust them over what the Word of God says)?


....

 

[sculleywr]

Don't confuse the penman with the author.

The author of which canon? There are 12 I know of. Only ONE can be the true one, and since I don't recall God saying which one is the true Canon, unless there happens to be another book that doesn't exist in any of the 12 canons I know of, then I am confused as to which canon you're saying was authored by God. You're running into the same problem now as KJV Onlyists. God didn't say which Canon is the correct one. Man made the canons. Unless you have 100% incontrovertible proof that God bound up the books and said this is the only canon we should use, then you lose.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Protestants don't even worship God in a traditional way. Just compare Protestant to Orthodox worship in sound.

So comparing music is the standard of being on the side of the truth?
Yes, there is no doubt a lot of Christian music that is not approved of by God, but that does not negate alot of other good worship musics that are out there for the believer in God's Word today.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ok, then since the names of the gospels and the identification of all the books of apostolic origin was done by men, let's assume the Table of Contents is full of lies, 66 lies in your Bible on that one page. Since it was MEN who declared them Scripture (Christ didn't name all of the books, and we can't be certain that really was Christ since we depend on MEN who told us those were the words of Christ), then we can't trust the Bible itself because for all we know, we could have been lied to.

As to 100% accuracy, was Christ entering Jericho when he healed the blind man outside the city or leaving? Matthew says entering. Mark says leaving. You said 100% accuracy. Absolute arguments are ALMOST always flawed, as is the case in the fact that since we don't have the originals, we can't verify your claim that we can verify the Scripture with 100% certainty. Since we can't even say with certainty which books are Scripture, we certainly can't verify if what is in them is true. And since you reject all opinions of man, then I assume you just call them Gospels 1, 2, 3, and 4, instead of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, since it was Irenaeus who told us who wrote them, fully 2 generations after Christ's ascension and the death of the Apostles! Since we're letting every man be a liar, in a strictly 100% absolutist sense, this is the only conclusion.

3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
(2 Timothy 4:3-4).

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:13).


...

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

So comparing music is the standard of being on the side of the truth?
Yes, there is no doubt a lot of Christian music that is not approved of by God, but that does not negate alot of other good worship musics that are out there for the believer in God's Word today.


...

The music you use for worship is extremely important. The kind of music you use expresses something, a very particular sort of ancient reverence and awe. The music expresses a condition your heart is to be in during worship, and that itself is part of right worship.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The music you use for worship is extremely important. The kind of music you use expresses something, a very particular sort of ancient reverence and awe. The music expresses a condition your heart is to be in during worship, and that itself is part of right worship.

Like I said, there are a lot of good worship musics that are unlike the popular pop-rock or Christian contemporary that you hear.
But again, that is not the standard. God's Word is the standard.
Also, I am not interested in viewing a video that looks like it has some freaky idolaltrous imagery within it. Thanks, but no thanks.


....