Sola scriptura

[civilwarbuff]

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.

After reading this I laughed so hard I had to go change my underwear.
What you have here is a chicken or the egg. Does scripture predate tradition or does tradition predate scripture?
Scripture must come first or else tradition has nothing to talk about except man thought ideas. Therefore scripture is superior to tradition; tradition is subservient to scripture. If scripture predates tradition it also predates canon. Scripture predates canon in that it was in use prior to canonization and the Church simply recognized what was already in common usage.
The rest of the crap you spewed I will ignore as not worth a response.......

 

[sculleywr]

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

A Canon. The proper interpretation of the Bible. The proper method of receiving Communion, Baptism, Marriage, the Laying on of Hands, Ordinations, whether it is allowed to wear a living genetically created purple monkey bat as a hat whilst delivering the Communion. Obviously the last was facetious. But the fact is that many of the important parts of Scripture are fundamentally missing from Scripture. You, being from a different culture, different era, different language, and different experience, most certainly are not the final word for what the Scripture means. But in your life, as an SS follower, you pretty much are. You serve as your own Pope. And because of this, because you fundamentally determine what you take from Scripture and what you ignore, your relationship to Scripture is the same spiritually as your physical relationship to a Chinese Buffet. You take what you want and leave what you don't. Whatever the case, it is YOU who are in charge of the spiritual buffet.

In a traditional church, it is the other way around. The food is put on your plate and you eat it, even if you don't personally like it. It is much more analogous to when I was growing up. I ate what my parents gave me. All of it. Even the brussel sprouts.

It is like now. I have a medically defined diet that is very strict. I may not eat what I want, and I must eat things I really REALLY do not like (just try a sip of GoLytely and you'll understand perfectly). But these things are good for me.

The Protestant is his own authority, though in practice many protestants just go along with whatever pastor Bob says and pew surf their whole lives (don't worry, it's also an issue over on this side of the world, too). He has a whole buffet of doctrines that are somehow backed by this, that, or the other interpretation of Scripture. And as far as they are concerned, each and every one of them, no matter how contradictory, is equally valid.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

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 listening to a video that looks like it has idolaltrous imagery within it. Thanks, but no thanks.


....

Imagery of angels was used in the First Temple and even on top of the Ark of the Covenant.

 

[Albion]

The Bible doesn't proscribe polygamous marriage.

It certainly does.

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.

These are not doctrines!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Imagery of angels was used in the First Temple and even on top of the Ark of the Covenant.

That is not what the Ark of the Covenant looks like. These are drawings of European white people. People do the same thing with Jesus. They make him out to be white or Gentile (because they like to think of themselves as the center of the universe) when in reality he was Jewish in appearance because he was a Jew.


....

 

[Albion]

Then how do you consider their choice of canon valid?

The church agreed to it on the basis of those books being considered inspired, and almost all denominations down through the ages have accepted that decision, that's all.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

It certainly does.

Where?

These are not doctrines!

A doctrine means "teaching", in Orthodox context, a teaching propagated by Christ personally. So yes, they are; some doctrines are just more complex than others, and that's why even though you can write about them, you can never make an exhaustive record of them; they're too mystical.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

That is not what the Ark of the Covenant looks like. These are drawings of European white people. People do the same thing with Jesus. They make him out to be white or Gentile (because they like to think of themselves as the center of the universe) when in reality he was Jewish in appearance because he was a Jew.


....

The Ark of the Covenant is described with two cherubim on top, so yes, it did have imagery of angels. The Temple is also described as having imagery of angels in the Old Testament.

 

[sculleywr]

After reading this I laughed so hard I had to go change my underwear.
What you have here is a chicken or the egg. Does scripture predate tradition or does tradition predate scripture?
Scripture must come first or else tradition has nothing to talk about except man thought ideas. Therefore scripture is superior to tradition; tradition is subservient to scripture. If scripture predates tradition it also predates canon. Scripture predates canon in that it was in use prior to canonization and the Church simply recognized what was already in common usage.
The rest of the crap you spewed I will ignore as not worth a response.......

So which canon is correct? And upion what authority does it stand? Your argument is circular logic. You are saying the Scripture is the determiner of canon which is the determiner of the Scripture. Tradition does predate Scripture, because before it was written, every single thing in Scripture was taught and spoken and shared through oral Tradition. Sorry, but there wasn't a single stroke of the pen for 18 years after the ascension of Christ, and the Apostles didn't teach every single Christian individually or even all of the individual gatherings because there were 12 apostles and hundreds of gatherings!

As to the chicken and egg, The chicken came first, and the chicken was Tradition. Even in the case of the Old Testament, those things written therein were all spoken long before they were written, even the Torah.

And Scripture cannot predate something that includes it. The fact is that it was true that Christ died for our sins long before the Gospels were written. That was ALL oral Tradition long before it became written Tradition.

So no, the Scripture didn't predate Tradition. It is a written compilation of the high points of the Apostolic ORAL Tradition. It is not everything Christ taught, not even close. But since it is EASY to prove that everything written in Scripture was spoken through Oral Tradition long before it was penned, with the possible exception of musical parts, your argument falls flat before the gun even fires to begin the race.

 

[Albion]

A doctrine means "teaching", in Orthodox context, a teaching propagated by Christ personally.

Then we need a different word that could be understood by Orthodox Christians the way this word is understood by all other Christians. The Bible is not an answer book on all things that the mind of man can come up with. It's revelation, so pointing out that the Bible doesn't, for example, answer how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, doesn't mean anything when it comes to Sola Scriptura or Sacred Tradition as a supplement or addition to Scripture.

 

[sculleywr]

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).

...

I'll take that as you saying that you're unable to answer the challenge put to you. Good try, though, but you lose this game of the "Search for Evidence" gameshow.

 

[civilwarbuff]

[

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

If you have a Temple to worship in, that would be "Traditional".

 

[Albion]

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

This is just more evidence that you are using the word tradition in the secular or historic sense, not to mean Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition. You value what's old. Those are traditions. Perhaps it's good to preserve the traditions. But we are speaking about Sola Scriptura, which is to address that which determines those teachings that are essential.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Then we need a different word that could be understood by Orthodox Christians the way this word is understood by all other Christians. The Bible is not an answer book on all things that the mind of man can come up with. It's revelation, so pointing out that the Bible doesn't, for example, answer how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, doesn't mean anything when it comes to Sola Scriptura or Sacred Tradition as a supplement or addition to Scripture.

Christ never taught how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but he did teach the things I mentioned.

Do you think he just expounded sayings with his Apostles? No, he was a spiritually counselor to them, guiding them in prayer, coping with sinful thoughts, attaining holiness, all sorts of things. He taught them how to be spiritual counselors as well, and they passed that tradition on.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

[

If you have a Temple to worship in, that would be "Traditional".

That doesn't really describe how you worship though.

Christ is the temple.

 

[civilwarbuff]

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.

The music should bring you closer to Messiah. Are you in a position to determine what kind of music that might be?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'll take that as you saying that you're unable to answer the challenge put to you. Good try, though, but you lose this game of the "Search for Evidence" gameshow.

There is no need to answer it. It is a loaded question with no weight to it. God's Word trumps man's word every time.


...

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

This is just more evidence that you are using the word tradition in the secular or historic sense, not to mean Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition.

No, there is a way Christ taught his Apostles to worship when they worshiped together. There was certainly a particular way they sang hymns. Although Christ himself most likely wasn't innovating a new style here, but following an ancient one.

 

[sculleywr]

Then we need a different word that could be understood by Orthodox Christians the way this word is understood by all other Christians. The Bible is not an answer book on all things that the mind of man can come up with. It's revelation, so pointing out that the Bible doesn't, for example, answer how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, doesn't mean anything when it comes to Sola Scriptura or Sacred Tradition as a supplement or addition to Scripture.

The problem is that Sola Scriptura is an addition to Scripture. It isn't directly taught by Scripture. I do mean DIRECTLY. This is an INTERPRETATION of Scripture that could not exist without a man who had to interpret Scripture in that manner. It is quite telling that those to whom Scripture was delivered didn't interpret it this way, and that in fact, nobody interpreted Scripture in such a manner for 1500 YEARS. 15 centuries had to pass before someone understood what Scripture really meant better even than those who could have said "Hey, Paul, did you really mean that the Scripture is the highest authority in the Church?" and gotten a direct answer? That's a highly dubious claim. It's basically saying that George Washington never had white hair.

 

[Albion]

Christ never taught how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but he did teach the things I mentioned.

What makes you say so?