Sola scriptura

[samir]

There are two difficulties here.

1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.

Good points. The biggest difficulty I have with sola scriptura is that it contradicts scripture.

 

[Soyeong]

The problem is that, in most cases, those who claim to follow sola scriptura follow many traditions which contradict the direct claims of Scripture and claim their belief is simply them teaching what Scripture teaches. The idea that the Scripture is a higher authority than the Church is, itself, a tradition that contradicts the Scripture's placement of Scripture as profitable, but the Church as pillar and ground of the Truth.

The fact is that when Scripture's plain meaning came into conflict with several Protestant doctrines, people changed the very canon of the Old Testament. On what authority did they base the editing of the Canon? Because the canon they used wasn't in existence in the time of Christ.

None of us think that we hold a view that contradicts Scripture, but I think the reality is that none of us have a 100% accurate understanding of everything Scripture, so we all have views that contradict the truth of Scripture. There are very likely some things that you are right about that I am wrong about, and vice versa, so we should dispense with the idea that we are ones who hold to the plain meaning of Scripture while everyone else holds views that clearly contradicts it. So we can disagree on interpretations of Scripture and even what constitutes as Scripture, but we should be in agreement that whatever it is that is God's word, it is truth, so it is the standard by which we should measure everything else against to see if it is true. If a tradition does contradict God's word, then we should reject that tradition instead of rejecting God's word. And if you are in agreement with that, then you are in agreement with Sola Scriptura.

 

[Philip_B]

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

Correct. Anglicans strive for unity - even with Anglicans, as Jesus prayed for us all.

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.

Augustine and Aquinas do, however not in the simplistic way that many suggest, so walk very carefully here Sister. From the Father through the Son is a valid understanding of a theology Double Procession. I personally do not think Filioque is a particularly good way to express the matter theologically, and I believe, as I have said before, that it has no rightful place in the Nicene Symbol.

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

This represents you taking something I have said beyond what I said again. This is not what I said, and you my dear are very much aware of it. Please do not think I am annoyed about that. Just accept it from me, I am.

Christianity is, however, black and white.

I would be much happier to say that Christianity is a relationship. Relationships are rarely, if ever, binomial.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

None of us think that we hold a view that contradicts Scripture, but I think the reality is that none of us have a 100% accurate understanding of everything Scripture, so we all have views that contradict the truth of Scripture. There are very likely some things that you are right about that I am wrong about, and vice versa, so we should dispense with the idea that we are ones who hold to the plain meaning of Scripture while everyone else holds views that clearly contradicts it. So we can disagree on interpretations of Scripture and even what constitutes as Scripture, but we should be in agreement that whatever it is that is God's word, it is truth, so it is the standard by which we should measure everything else against to see if it is true. If a tradition does contradict God's word, then we should reject that tradition instead of rejecting God's word.

Scripture might be difficult to comprehend, but there is a way of understanding it that has been passed on since ancient times. You can have multiple understandings of various verses and passages, and that is fine, so long as they don't conflict. If you have an understanding of a part of Scripture, check to see if it is harmonious with how Scripture was always understood in the Church. If it's not, your understanding is wrong.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Correct. Anglicans strive for unity - even with Anglicans, as Jesus prayed for us all.

Matthew 5:30

Matthew 18:17

2 Thessalonians 3:6

1 Corinthians 5:11

Augustine and Aquinas do, however not in the simplistic way that many suggest, so walk very carefully here Sister. From the Father through the Son is a valid understanding of a theology Double Procession. I personally do not think Filioque is a particularly good way to express the matter theologically, and I believe, as I have said before, that it has no rightful place in the Nicene Symbol.

Augustine is a saint, but he was also a Nestorian and had many faults in his theology because he didn't study the Fathers due to dislike of reading Greek.

Aquinas says it just in the way I suggest, he suggests that the persons of the Trinity are distinguished purely by relations.

I would be much happier to say that Christianity is a relationship. Relationships are rarely, if ever, binomial.

Christianity is Truth, which is binomial when of the Absolute.

 

[Philip_B]

Matthew 5:30

Matthew 18:17

2 Thessalonians 3:6

1 Corinthians 5:11





Augustine is a saint, but he was also a Nestorian and had many faults in his theology because he didn't study the Fathers due to dislike of reading Greek.

Aquinas says it just in the way I suggest, he suggests that the persons of the Trinity are distinguished purely by relations.


Christianity is Truth, which is binomial when of the Absolute.

Live Long and Prosper

 

[FireDragon76]

It seems you don't fully address the history of the western Church in your estimation of things and are being uncharitable, believing too much in a romanticized history given by some Orthodox polemicists.

The Filioque in the west was included locally first, as a way to try to address the Arian controversy in the West (whole Gothic and Frankish tribes were Arian). You are right that various Popes at times opposed it, but eventually it became a received tradition just due to the persistence of Arianism itself. The same is true with the Minor Doxology ("..as it was in the beginning, both now and ever and to the ages of ages...") These were all in response to the Arian controversy and did not arise necessarily out of a plot to change the faith from orthodoxy.

I notice that tendency a lot in your rhetoric in fact. You posted some quotes by Luther without seriously engaging with Luther's thought or trying to understand his logic. Luther saw moralism as a great enemy of faith, a point I would happen to agree with. Moralists are always the most superficial, unspiritual, and pharisaical, and they don't have much compassion for their victims. Perhaps he said some rash things but I believe if you dealt seriously with his thought you would realize the kernel of truth behind his words and actions.

Also, there were plenty of Orthodox saints that said and did bizarre things (Holy Foods) and plenty of anti-Semites (Chrysostom, John of Kronstadt, etc.). So pointing to Luther to bash Protestants isn't very fair since you claim to be an Orthodox Christian.

Augustine was not a Nestorian. He was formerly Manichean. But I'm not sure that influenced his theology to any significant degree.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

It seems you don't fully address the history of the western Church in your estimation of things and are being uncharitable, believing too much in a romanticized history given by some Orthodox polemicists.

The Filioque in the west was included locally first, as a way to try to address the Arian controversy in the West (whole Gothic and Frankish tribes were Arian). You are right that various Popes at times opposed it, but eventually it became a received tradition just due to the persistence of Arianism itself. The same is true with the Minor Doxology ("..as it was in the beginning, both now and ever and to the ages of ages...") These were all in response to the Arian controversy and did not arise necessarily out of a plot to change the faith from orthodoxy.

I notice that tendency a lot in your rhetoric in fact. You posted some quotes by Luther without seriously engaging with Luther's thought or trying to understand his logic. Luther saw moralism as a great enemy of faith, a point I would happen to agree with. Moralists are always the most superficial, unspiritual, and pharisaical, and they don't have much compassion for their victims. Perhaps he said some rash things but I believe if you dealt seriously with his thought you would realize the kernel of truth behind his words and actions.

Also, there were plenty of Orthodox saints that said and did bizarre things (Holy Foods) and plenty of anti-Semites (Chrysostom, John of Kronstadt, etc.). So pointing to Luther to bash Protestants isn't very fair since you claim to be an Orthodox Christian.

Augustine was not a Nestorian. He was formerly Manichean. But I'm not sure that influenced his theology to any significant degree.

No, the Pope accepted under pressure from Henry II of Germany, no Arian epidemic was extant then.

I would say that faith without morality is worthless.

Certain foods are more spiritually conducive. This is why fasting is a still a big thing in the Orthodox Church, normally it means particular dietary restrictions (although in a few cases it means no food, period). Monastics have to be lifelong pescatarians besides following rigorous fasts.

Saint John Chrysostom wasn't "antisemtic" anymore than he was racist against Greeks. Back then, "Hellene" was used universally by Christians to refer to those who followed the Greek pagan religion, and Saint John Chrysostom condemns "Greeks" to the fullest. Post-Christian Judaism is, quite literally, completely an outgrowth of Phariseeism, so by your standards, Christ was an antisemite.

Saint John of Kronstadt was rightfully opposed to the Jewish religion, but he didn't advocate burning their houses or persecuting them, as Luther did. In fact, he was vocally against that.

Saint Augustine said Mary was only the Mother of Christ's humanity, not his divinity, I would say that's Nestorian.

 

[Deadworm]

Constantine the Sinner: "There are two difficulties here."

Protestant scholarship views apostolic success as a later retroactive ecclesial construct which provides only political clout to the Roman Catholic Church. So I think your 2 questions need to be expanded to 7 more issues.

1. 'No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition."
(a) No NT statements about divine inspiration of Scripture can be applied to the as yet unclosed NT canon as a whole. So on what basis do we affirm the inspiration of the NT?

(b) The closure of the OT canon was justified by the rabbinic claim that when Zechariah and Malachi died, the Holy Spirit left Israel. Yet the evidence suggests that the prophetic charism continued thereafter, but was not recognized by the Jewish establishment. Similarly, the early church limits the Christian age of divine revelation to the apostolic era. From 170 AD on, Montanist female prophets produced fresh revelation from the Risen Lord and the Holy Spirit. This criterion for canon closure is partly asserted to muzzle uppity female Montanist female prophets who don't know their pace and produce new revelations from the Risen Lord and the Holy Spirit after 170 AD. Why should anyone believe either claim to the closure of the age of special revelation?

(c) Luke 1:1-4 implies that "many" Gospels were written prior to Luke. Mark is the only canonical Gospel that is certainly known to Luke. What if one of these other lost Gospels were discovered? Should we consider expanding the NT canon to include it?

(d) The modern scholarly consensus is that the Pastoral Epistles (1-2 Timothy and Titus) and 2 Peter are pseudonymous. If this verdict is correct, what is the justification for retaining those books in our canon?

2. "There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture."

(a) "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth (John 16:12)."
It seems doubtful that we can simplistically identify our NT as the completion of the "many things" Jesus still wanted to teach.

(b) One of the gifts of the Spirit is prophecy. This charism theoretically allows fresh revelation for our times from new Isaiahs and Jeremiahs. But, of course, we would not accept such new revelation sd canonical.

(c) There are so many important moral and spiritual issues on which the Bible offers no explicit prohibitions or pronouncements: e. g. abortion (condemned by Didache 2:4, but not explicitly by Scripture), the validity of near-death experiences and visionary after-death communications, the question of why pain, suffering and hardship are so unfairly distributed, the fate of pagans who have never heard the Gospel, etc.

 

[FireDragon76]

Saint Augustine said Mary was only the Mother of Christ's humanity, not his divinity, I would say that's Nestorian.

The real issue, was he consistently Nestorian? He may have simply been trying to emphasize that Mary is not the origin of the divine nature.

Post-Christian Judaism is, quite literally, completely an outgrowth of Phariseeism, so by your standards, Christ was an antisemite.

You miss my point. My point is that a religious movement is greater than one particular individual. Lutherans do not follow everything Luther did, said, or taught, he is not the Lutheran Pope. But that doesn't mean his teachings are worthless, either. Some nuance is necessary here.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The real issue, was he consistently Nestorian? He may have simply been trying to emphasize that Mary is not the origin of the divine nature.

It's from his commentary on John 2:4. Saint Augustine then goes on to say that the miracle Christ performs (turning water into wine) is "according to his divine nature", as opposed to his human nature; this is extremely Nestorian, to ascribe Christ's actions to one nature or the other, as opposed to ascribing them to his hypostasis.

You miss my point. My point is that a religious movement is greater than one particular individual. Lutherans do not follow everything Luther did, said, or taught, he is not the Lutheran Pope. But that doesn't mean his teachings are worthless, either. Some nuance is necessary here.

His teachings are important for historical perspective. They are worthless, theologically speaking, at least from an Orthodox perspective, because Luther did not lead a holy life. Compare him with another major heretic, Origen: Origen is (rightfully) anathematized, but his teachings still are worth studying with a grain of salt; this is because he lead a life dedicated to spiritual discipline. Luther, by contrast, was a monk who absconded with a nun and married her, and professed an extreme hated for the ascetic life.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's an un-nuanced characterization of Luther. The dissolution of monasteries in western Europe you can blame on greedy secular rulers in Germany or Scandinavia more than you can on Luther.

He had a measure of respect for monastics such as St. Anthony, and he didn't see anything wrong with being a monk if one found that way of life suited to a persons disposition (indeed, there were and are Lutheran monastics in Germany, and even today there are Lutheran monasteries and religious orders). What he did object to was the idea that it was spiritually meritorious to be a monk vs. a lay vocation.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

That's an un-nuanced characterization of Luther. The dissolution of monasteries in western Europe you can blame on greedy secular rulers in Germany or Scandinavia more than you can on Luther.

He had a measure of respect for monastics such as St. Anthony, and he didn't see anything wrong with being a monk if one found that way of life suited to a persons disposition (indeed, there were and are Lutheran monastics in Germany, and even today there are Lutheran monasteries and religious orders). What he did object to was the idea that it was spiritually meritorious to be a monk vs. a lay vocation.

Correct, the major epidemic of Western monasticism is that it wasn't ascetic. If Luther decried that, that would be one thing; rather he loathed asceticism. He very blatantly denounced celibacy.

According to Saint John Chrysostom, the only major difference between a monk and non-monastic should be marriage.

 

[ev-8891]

2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.

This argumentation is as difficult as Sola Scriptura. If you say so:
-> there is no verse that says Sacraments as well.
-> there is no verse that says Tradition should be included for making doctrines, too.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

This argumentation is as difficult as Sola Scriptura. If you say so:
-> there is no verse that says Sacraments as well.
-> there is no verse that says Tradition should be included for making doctrines, too.

"Sacrament" is just a Western translation of what the Orthodox call holy mysteries.

In fact there is a verse about Holy Tradition, 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Most importantly, I'm not advocating Sola Scriptura--that is, I don't see Scripture as the sole source of doctrine, so saying my doctrines aren't in Scripture is not an argument against my position.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

There are only two things about the WORD of GOD

1. It's of the Spirit
2. The Church is guided by the Incarnated Spirit or rather the Word

The LORD cannot say one thing then mean the other in the next centuries. We believe the Apostles because their words coincided with the nature of the Spirit and hence the Spirit was alive in the Gospels and in the Letters. So if you teach anything else besides this, it's either the Spirit is not of the Church of the Apostolic Writings or the Church is not of the Spirit AT ALL. One of us, assumed authority over the other, the teachings or the Scripture but if I were to be asked what can a mere mortal offer the world that the LORD hasn't spoken yet!!! If you contradict the Bible you contradict the great I AM or the Teacher and founder of all the traditions shared in the Prophets, Gospels and the Letters PERIOD!

 

[Linet Kihonge]

I compare scripture with scripture, not scripture with teachings of a denomination

 

[dqhall]

Scripture alone may used to look for God's will, yet we have more than scripture alone. God continues to reveal things to people through prophesy. There are also other sources that have been used to illuminate the nature of the Bible. The Dead Sea scrolls were used to correct errors in the OT writings known before 1947. Both the Hebrew OT and the Septuagint translations used in Christian Bibles contained copying errors as shown by examining the Dead Sea scrolls found in caves south of Jericho near the Dead Sea. The scrolls dated to the first century AD or earlier. Modern science allows a person to be skeptical about parts of the Torah.

 

[sculleywr]

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.

And you create a straw man, because that is nothing like what I said. Thanks for playing. You just left the arena. Is the Canon in Scripture? Is it an incontrovertible truth?

Well, actually, according to Protestants, it isn't an incontrovertible truth, since they changed the very canon of Scripture based on their doctrines, so I guess that the Canon isn't an incontrovertible truth.

The fact is that if you see the Canon as an incontrovertible Truth, then you believe in an incontrovertible Truth outside of Scripture. Or did God also inspire the writers of the table of contents? And which table of contents is inspired? The new one used by the Protestants, or the older one used by traditional churches?

 

[sculleywr]

None of us think that we hold a view that contradicts Scripture, but I think the reality is that none of us have a 100% accurate understanding of everything Scripture, so we all have views that contradict the truth of Scripture. There are very likely some things that you are right about that I am wrong about, and vice versa, so we should dispense with the idea that we are ones who hold to the plain meaning of Scripture while everyone else holds views that clearly contradicts it. So we can disagree on interpretations of Scripture and even what constitutes as Scripture, but we should be in agreement that whatever it is that is God's word, it is truth, so it is the standard by which we should measure everything else against to see if it is true. If a tradition does contradict God's word, then we should reject that tradition instead of rejecting God's word. And if you are in agreement with that, then you are in agreement with Sola Scriptura.

And the moment that Scripture becomes something you can change, you are no longer placing Scripture as the highest authority. When you change Scripture because it contradicts your traditions, then you have a problem, and if you use the modern 66 book canon, then you have a changed scripture that was changed in accordance with your traditions.