Sola Scriptura

MattMMMan17 · Dec 28, 2003

In that case, you misunderstand the meaning of the word itself. Because Catholics are Orthodox in the strictest sense of the word.

EdmundBlackadderTheThird · Dec 28, 2003

or·tho·dox ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôrth-dks)
adj.

1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.

That is the most used and most accepted definition of the word. So by asking for an orthodox Christian, he is asking for someone from a denomination that is not Catholic or based in Catholisism but in the scriptures. This is pretty obvious and the petty arguing is pretty pointless. Thanks for playing.

Greeter · Dec 28, 2003

MattMMMan17 said:
In that case, you misunderstand the meaning of the word itself. Because Catholics are Orthodox in the strictest sense of the word.

He has already explained himself as to what he is referring to. Now it just looks like you are trying to skirt forum rules. I realize it is difficult to tell this nowadays but PRE is not IDD. Please stop trying to turn PRE into IDD.

InquisitorKind · Dec 28, 2003

MattMMMan17 said:
Whether intended or not, I find that post offensive. I don't THINK you intended it for that purpose, but would you mind rephrasing it to say "Can anyone post something contrary about sola scriptura written from a non-catholic/non-eastern orthodox Christian?"

If it's offensive to you, send an alert to a moderator without disturbing this discussion and publically complaining. The Christian way to settle a dispute is to go to your brother privately for resolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by: Reformed Baptist

Do you agree with this:

"Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. So as you can see, your definition does not correspond well to the actual doctrine. James White

If not, how do you as a non-catholic/non-orthodox Christian define sola scriptura?

I agree with this definition.

~Matt

MattMMMan17 · Dec 28, 2003

Flesh, I can tell by that post that you know little of the Early Church. The new testament wasn't even completed until the end of the first century, over fifty years AFTER the Church had been established. Scriptures are the product of God through the Church. The Church is NOT a product of the scriptures. The Catholic Church has 2000 years of traditional established faith, and that is something NO Christian denomination can claim. Of course, the EO will claim it as well, but you've excluded BOTH of us from your definition. You've excluded the two oldest Christian Churches in existence today.

MattMMMan17 · Dec 28, 2003

You're right, it's not IDD. I was just trying to correct an incorrect belief. But it seems that nothing will change, and my time will be wasted if I continue. I'll take my leave.

InquisitorKind · Dec 28, 2003

MattMMMan17 said:
You're right, it's not IDD. I was just trying to correct an incorrect belief. But it seems that nothing will change, and my time will be wasted if I continue. I'll take my leave.

Okay, good. Back on topic.

~Matt

EdmundBlackadderTheThird · Dec 28, 2003

The main problem with Sola Scriptura that I can see being at all debateable is that we do not have all the "autograph" copies of the Scripture. Of course I full believe God has inspired the translations available to us and that we can learn his will from them and use the for correction, for reproof, for rebuttal, et al.

Reformed Baptist · Dec 28, 2003

MattMMMan17 said:
In that case, you misunderstand the meaning of the word itself. Because Catholics are Orthodox in the strictest sense of the word.

But I'm not looking for the orthodox Catholic view, but the orthodox Christian view...meaning non-catholic but still orthodox. Are you saying you have to be catholic to be orthodox? Now I'm offended. I'm not looking for the orthodox protestant view either...

seebs · Dec 28, 2003

flesh99 said:
That is the most used and most accepted definition of the word. So by asking for an orthodox Christian, he is asking for someone from a denomination that is not Catholic or based in Catholisism but in the scriptures. This is pretty obvious and the petty arguing is pretty pointless. Thanks for playing.

I can't make any sense of this.

I guess, could someone name an example of a denomination which is "orthodox" but neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox? I mean, is this a request for "Greek Orthodox" or something?

Reformed Baptist · Dec 28, 2003

I'm looking for orthodox Christian view, that would mean someone who isn't swayed by traditional human views of philosophy (as were Aquinas, Anselm, etc.) but those who use Biblical Theology. The only orthodox view for a Christian in this forum should be found in the Bible.

seebs · Dec 28, 2003

Reformed Baptist said:
I mean orthodox as a word and not the denomination.

Well, the thing is, the only denominations that seem to be "orthodox" by any reasonable understanding would be the really old ones. "Sola scriptura" is a Protestant doctrine, and showed up around 1500.

It's hard for me to call something that antedates the Bible by roughly 1200 years "Orthodox".

If pressed, I think I could make a case for some of the very unstructured branches of Christianity being "Orthodox" in the sense of being very like early Biblical Christianity.

seebs · Dec 28, 2003

Reformed Baptist said:
I'm looking for orthodox Christian view, that would mean someone who isn't swayed by traditional human views of philosophy (as were Aquinas, Anselm, etc.) but those who use Biblical Theology. The only orthodox view for a Christian in this forum should be found in the Bible.

I'm curious, on what do you base this conclusion?

Reformed Baptist · Dec 28, 2003

seebs said:
Well, the thing is, the only denominations that seem to be "orthodox" by any reasonable understanding would be the really old ones. "Sola scriptura" is a Protestant doctrine, and showed up around 1500.

It's hard for me to call something that antedates the Bible by roughly 1200 years "Orthodox".

If pressed, I think I could make a case for some of the very unstructured branches of Christianity being "Orthodox" in the sense of being very like early Biblical Christianity.

I to am curious, on what do you base this conclusion?

Reformed Baptist · Dec 28, 2003

***A quote from a friend of mine, based in Biblical Theology which is how I have come to the conclusion that I have and is the reason why I left the Greek Orthodox Church....

Long before the birth of the church the eternal Son of God gave us His Word in the Old Testament and reitierated it in the New: "... that He might make thee know that MAN DOTH NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD...But He [Christ] answered and said, IT IS WRITTEN, MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD" (Deut. 8:3; Matt. 4:4). You can call it "Sola Scriptura" or you can call it "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God", the fact is that in the face of "the traditions of men" Christ upheld only ONE AUTHORITY -- the written Word of God.

1. The OT became an "open book" after the resurrection of Christ, in that the risen Christ revealed to His apostles that He was on every page of that blessed Book (Luke 24:44-45). Christ specifically gave us the three major divisions of the OT in this passage as found in the Hebrew OT with only 24 books -- (1) the Law of Moses or Torah-- the first 5 books; (2) the Prophets or Nebiim -- Joshua, Judges, Samuel (1 book), Kings (1 book), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve (minor prophets). Then Christ mentioned "the Psalms" which was another name for Kethubiim or the Writings, with Psalms as the first book, followed by Provers and Job, then the Song of Songs [Solomon],Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, then Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah [1 book] and Chronicles [1 book]. So the OT became an "open book".

2. The apostles preached and expounded the Gospel from the OT in the early days of the Church (Acts Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26; 4:5-12 and so on).

3. The OT Scriptures were searched daily by the early Church (Acts 17:11)

4. The words and epistles of the apostles were in circulation very early in the history of the churches, and undoubtedly copies of the OT "parchments" [scrolls] and the NT "books" [papyri] were in existence even while the NT was being completed. Peter, writing around 66 A.D. says: "And account the longsuffering our our Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him HATH WRITTEN UNTO YOU, AS ALSO IN ALL HIS EPISTLES, speaking in them of these things: in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest [twist], AS THEY DO ALSO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES [note], unto their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3:15-16).

Thus "Sola Scriptura" was the standard and the norm for the apostles as well as for most of the Apostolic Fathers. At the same time, the doctrines of men, the heresies of Gnosticism, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans began to flourish early in the life of the churches, and so Scriptures began to be corrupted, and the authority of men began to take on the authority of Scripture. Which lead to the 'over' stated use of tradition when looking at the Word of God.

That the written Word of God is to be the sole authority in the life of the believer is also clear from Heb. 4:11-13; Jn.16:12-15; 17:17-19; Eph. 5:26-27).

thereselittleflower · Dec 28, 2003

hi Reformed Baptist . . I would like to suggest something . . that it would be better to state that you are looking for an Orthodox PROTESTANT view rather than an Orthodox Christian view . . Protestants tend to call themselves Christian and though many recognize that Catholics are Christian too, they call them Catholics . . so when most say Christian, they are referring to how they call themselves . . it creates confussion . .

If you are looking for an Orthodox Protestant view point, then Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not fall into that catagory . . .but if you are looking for an Orthodox Christian view point, you have to take into account all of Christian history, of which Protestantism is very recent, so an Orthodox view point would be the oldest view points found in Catholicism and Orthodoxy . . and this is why people on both sides are getting offended . .

Regarding the scriptures becoming an open canon at the time New Testament era, this is a misconception . . it did not become open . . it was always open . . .The Jews did not have a closed canon of scriptures until around the end of the 1st Century AD . . not at the time of Jesus or the Apostles . .

Peace in Him!

Reformed Baptist · Dec 28, 2003

I'm not a protestant...I'm a Christian. I'm not protesting anything.

MattMMMan17 · Dec 28, 2003

A rose by any other name. . .

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'll now continue lurking.

Svt4Him · Dec 28, 2003

Is a rose, by it's characteristics. A protestant can't really be called a protestant if they're not protesting, unlike the rose example, as the rose is still a rose.

Terri · Dec 28, 2003

but if you are looking for an Orthodox Christian view point, you have to take into account all of Christian history, of which Protestantism is very recent

I always find this a very funny statement from catholics. They claim to be the one and only genuine original church there from the beginning, yet they certainly burden down their members with much more than the earliest church and Holy Spirit saw fit to do.

Now unless as a catholic the only burden you place on your "church" members adheres to AC 15:28 than you are certainly not the church discribed in AC 15:28!

You can scream you are the one and only genuine original church as long as you want... I just don't believe it... Have never believed it... Will never believe it!!!

AC 15:28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Sola Scriptura

Well-Known Member

Proud member of the Loud Few

The Space Invaders did not get by on me!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Proud member of the Loud Few

Regular Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Regular Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

God Made Me A Skeptic

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency