Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Of course ... SS isn't a tradition of any kind, and is found clearly spelled out in Scripture (as it must be if it's to be believed) ... where was that verse again?
This is why, imo, it might be kind of helpful to have some sort of central, literally Apostolic body of interpretation and theology that's been handed down along side the Canon. To help us understand and sort these things out, and to keep things in line.
Well, we do not have some single central source of interpretation that's been handed down alongside the canon.This is why, imo, it might be kind of helpful to have some sort of central, literally Apostolic body of interpretation and theology that's been handed down along side the Canon. To help us understand and sort these thing out, and to keep things in line.
Yes, I'm aware that's what's usually quoted.2 Timothy 3:16-17
We did have something like that at one time ... there is still the very great deposit of the ECFs, who individually of course are not infallible, but we CAN see how Scriptures in general were interpreted, historically, as the canon was developing.Well, we do not have some single central source of interpretation that's been handed down alongside the canon.
It would have been helpful, I agree, if that had been the case, but we do not have such a thing. That, however, doesn't make Scripture any less the word of God than it is or elevate something manmade into an addendum to the Bible.
It just makes us reply upon linguists, Bible scholars, reason, and perhaps some other aids in order to properly understand God's revelation.
Then your question has been answered.Yes, I'm aware that's what's usually quoted.
So, is that open ended -- latter day prophets, the Book of Mormon, palm reading, what? To me, the idea that the Bible declares itself but does not also explicitly say "now do not consider all these other things that are not from me to be the equal of my word: 1. 2. etc." to be a ridiculous demand.But that verse does not say to jettison everything not in Scripture, that all doctrine must come from Scripture, or anything else.
Still man's opinions. That cannot be the equivalent of divine revelation. The importance of the ECFs is that they were witnesses to church history and, in a few cases, Apostolic teaching.We did have something like that at one time ... there is still the very great deposit of the ECFs, who individually of course are not infallible, but we CAN see how Scriptures in general were interpreted, historically, as the canon was developing.
Well, we do not have some single central source of interpretation that's been handed down alongside the canon.
It would have been helpful, I agree, if that had been the case, but we do not have such a thing. That, however, doesn't make Scripture any less the word of God than it is or elevate something manmade into an addendum to the Bible.
It just makes us rely upon linguists, Bible scholars, reason, and perhaps some other aids in order to properly understand God's revelation.
reason, not rationalizations.Whose reason, though?
Still man's opinions. That cannot be the equivalent of divine revelation. The importance of the ECFs is that they were witnesses to church history and, in a few cases, Apostolic teaching.
reason, not rationalizations.
This means that we are not to abandon all common sense when reading Scripture. For example, if we read the Bible to say that Jesus taught that we are to be of one accord, we are not on good ground to interpret that as meaning we are all to get into a Honda. That would defy reason.
And truly, Sir, the Anglican Church has really, really, really seemed to rely more heavily on human reason / wants / vision than on a serious, contrite reading of what Scripture says and doesn't say in the 20th and 21st centuries.
That is true. And they disagreed with each other. And they do not actually represent a continuous stream of thought from the beginning of the church era forward--although the claim that there is continuity is supposedly why Tradition is to be accepted.The ECFs erred as all do.
Not to mention that Scripture of the NT wasn't complete then, or even considered Scripture.Yes, I'm aware that's what's usually quoted.
But seriously, what does it say?
It says all Scripture is profitable. But that is not the same thing as saying Scripture is the only thing that is profitable.
Honestly, Orthodoxy agrees with certain iterations of SS.
But that verse does not say to jettison everything not in Scripture, that all doctrine must come from Scripture, or anything else. One could argue sufficiency from that passage. But sufficiency can be found in much less than the entire Bible - it would be possible to pull out a few verses that in themselves would be "sufficient" meaning salvation is possible.
Not to mention, that passage does not and cannot refer to the New Testament. Would you argue SS based on the OT canon only?
I'm not trying to be snide, but in carefully and honestly evaluating Scripture, SS isn't there. And by many people's understanding of SS, that fact alone would automatically invalidate a doctrine.
That is true. And they disagreed with each other. And they do not represent a continuous stream of thought from the beginning of the church era--which is supposed to be why Tradition is accepted.
But I was giving them as much credit as possible. Some were witnesses to church doings in an early time and that may be of some value to us, that's all.
Comparing being of one accord (agreement of one understanding of scripture) to getting into a Honda? Not a great comparison and doesn't help your argument.reason, not rationalizations.
This means that we are not to abandon all common sense when reading Scripture. For example, if we read the Bible to say that Jesus taught that we are to be of one accord, we are not on good ground to interpret that as meaning we are all to get into a Honda. That would defy reason.
Then your question has been answered.
So, is that open ended -- latter day prophets, the Book of Mormon, palm reading, what? To me, the idea that the Bible declares itself but does not also explicitly say "now do not consider all these other things that are not from me to be the equal of my word: 1. 2. etc." to be a ridiculous demand.
God says this is his word; we have no basis for saying in reply, "So? Maybe something else is, too. It could be just about anything." To take that position is to reject what God has revealed to us. It is to "second guess" it.
The ECFs erred as all do. We should look to them no more than we should look even to the apostles. Peter had to be smacked upside the head by Paul, for instance.
The foundation for Paul's argument was that Peter was not walking inline with the gospel. It was not, I'm in a higher position of authority than you, because Paul wasn't. Peter was the superior in terms of authority, yet Paul was able to correct him. That completely undermines all argument for papal authority, IMO.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?