Sola Scriptura -

[HwtChirino]

That is a circular argument

How so?

 

[HwtChirino]

Secondly "sola scriptura" does not say that everything that is not inside the pages of scripture is doctrinal error -- rather it says that all doctrine and practice -- yes all tradition as well - must be tested against known scripture.

Well, that doesn't work. How did the righteous servants of God test their theology and praxis against known scripture if it didn't exist prior to Moses?

If the dogma of Sola Scriptura is valid, it is necessary that it be valid throughout all of human history. But it is quite obvious from the scriptures themselves that God's people did not always have the scriptures. In fact, thousands of years had passed before Moses gave Israel the law of God. It is even more obvious that God's elect were able to live righteously and receive salvation from the Lord without consulting the scriptures that had not yet been written. Look at Enoch, look at Noah, look at Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Joseph and Moses. Where was their Sola Scriptura? However, we know that God saved them. These men knew God and they were pleasing to God; they were righteous.

Tell me, then, if Sola Scriptura states that all doctrine and practice must be tested against known scripture, how did these men of God come to know God and live righteously and receive salvation, all without having any scriptures available to them?

And if they were able to know the divine doctrines and practices of a God-pleaser without consulting scripture as their source of authoritative truth, why should anyone believe that the same cannot occur now in these times? Why should anyone believe that scripture is the only source of divine revelation of the authoritative truth?

But so that you do not think I am beyond unreasonable, I will repeat myself: Holy Tradition does not oppose Holy Scripture, but Holy Scripture is not authoritative without Holy Tradition interpreting it. Yet it is more accurate to say that the source of both is the Holy Spirit's illumination. Hence, it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to contradict Himself in the Scriptures or Tradition. But it is also impossible for anyone to discern the Truth of God in Holy Tradition and in Holy Scripture without the grace of discernment from the Holy Spirit. Thus, we see people darkened in their understanding accusing the One True Orthodox Church of Christ of holding traditions which are derived of men rather than God. But these men are deceived, since as I said, our Holy Tradition in no way contradicts the Divine Scriptures and vice versa. Nevertheless, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God, they lay false accusations against us, saying that infant baptism, the veneration if the saints and the Mother of God, the icons, the Eucharist, the ecclesiastical hierarchy, apostolic succession, theosis, and the invocation of the saints, amongst other doctrines, are all heresies unsupported by God's scriptures! When, in fact, they are the ones who carnally understand Divine Writ and therefore are unable to perceive that our Holy Tradition is of the Lord and in no way opposes His words, which shall never pass away.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, that doesn't work. How did the righteous servants of God test their theology and praxis against known scripture if it didn't exist prior to Moses?

If the dogma of Sola Scriptura is valid, it is necessary that it be valid throughout all of human history. But it is quite obvious from the scriptures themselves that God's people did not always have the scriptures. In fact, thousands of years had passed before Moses gave Israel the law of God. It is even more obvious that God's elect were able to live righteously and receive salvation from the Lord without consulting the scriptures that had not yet been written. Look at Enoch, look at Noah, look at Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Joseph and Moses. Where was their Sola Scriptura? However, we know that God saved them. These men knew God and they were pleasing to God; they were righteous.

Tell me, then, if Sola Scriptura states that all doctrine and practice must be tested against known scripture, how did these men of God come to know God and live righteously and receive salvation, all without having any scriptures available to them?

And if they were able to know the divine doctrines and practices of a God-pleaser without consulting scripture as their source of authoritative truth, why should anyone believe that the same cannot occur now in these times? Why should anyone believe that scripture is the only source of divine revelation of the authoritative truth?

But so that you do not think I am beyond unreasonable, I will repeat myself: Holy Tradition does not oppose Holy Scripture, but Holy Scripture is not authoritative without Holy Tradition interpreting it. Yet it is more accurate to say that the source of both is the Holy Spirit's illumination. Hence, it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to contradict Himself in the Scriptures or Tradition. But it is also impossible for anyone to discern the Truth of God in Holy Tradition and in Holy Scripture without the grace of discernment from the Holy Spirit. Thus, we see people darkened in their understanding accusing the One True Orthodox Church of Christ of holding traditions which are derived of men rather than God. But these men are deceived, since as I said, our Holy Tradition in no way contradicts the Divine Scriptures and vice versa. Nevertheless, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God, they lay false accusations against us, saying that infant baptism, the veneration if the saints and the Mother of God, the icons, the Eucharist, the ecclesiastical hierarchy, apostolic succession, theosis, and the invocation of the saints, amongst other doctrines, are all heresies unsupported by God's scriptures! When, in fact, they are the ones who carnally understand Divine Writ and therefore are unable to perceive that our Holy Tradition is of the Lord and in no way opposes His words, which shall never pass away.

Why were the scriptures written?

 

[HwtChirino]

Why were the scriptures written?

Why should I answer you if you blatantly ignore my questions?

 

[ripple the car]

I finally ditched Sola Scriptura because I realized that I was stupid, and needed help. Either the Holy Spirit says fifteen incompatible things to fifteen different Christians, or we truly do need help.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why should I answer you if you blatantly ignore my questions?

I’m sorry I didn’t know you were asking me. You replied to someone else named Bob Ryan. I’m just curious why anyone would take the time to write the scriptures?

 

[HwtChirino]

I’m sorry I didn’t know you were asking me. You replied to someone else named Bob Ryan. I’m just curious why anyone would take the time to write the scriptures?

We all know why the scriptures were written.

The question you ask gives the impression that you are speaking with guile rather than straightforwardness since there is no Christian who should be considered a Christian who does not know the answer.

 

[BNR32FAN]

We all know why the scriptures were written.

The question you ask gives the impression that you are speaking with guile rather than straightforwardness since there is no Christian who should be considered a Christian who does not know the answer.

Why do you fear the answer? It’s just a simple question.

 

[Steve Petersen]

'Sola Scriptura' is just a Protestant knee-jerk against Apostolic Succession and authority.

 

[Albion]

If a person answers that the Scriptures were inspired by God, it then becomes very difficult for that person to say that they are not adequate for our instruction.

(and just like that, ten or twelve different threads claiming that Sola Scriptura is bunk go right down the drain! )

 

[Albion]

'Sola Scriptura' is just a Protestant knee-jerk against Apostolic Succession and authority.

That seems like a dubious theory to me, considering that the founder of Protestantism and the man most identified with Sola Scriptura did not reject Apostolic Succession.

 

[BNR32FAN]

'Sola Scriptura' is just a Protestant knee-jerk against Apostolic Succession and authority.

How can anyone know which church is the right church without the scriptures? Surely they can’t simply take the pastor’s or priest’s word for it. That would be just as confusing as the scriptures themselves. Ever church leader will say that their church is correct and others are wrong. So people are forced to rely on their own interpretation in order to choose the church that they believe is the right church. Some people will say that it is the Catholic Church that is the right church. But which one? The Roman, Orthodox, and Oriental Catholic Churches disagree on both doctrine and traditions yet the all have apostlic succession. Unfortunately God doesn’t converse with us like he did in the Old Testament and pre Old Testament times. Yet the Holy Spirit is still at work leading people to Christ. In different ways with different teachings. Many people are seeking and knocking surely we must trust that by the Holy Spirit the door will be opened and they will find. Perhaps these people are exactly where the Holy Spirit wants them to be. I don’t know. All Christian churches teach us to love and honor God and to love each other as Jesus loves us. They just teach different ways of doing it. How can we be certain that people are in the wrong church if they are seeking God?

 

[thecolorsblend]

How can anyone know which church is the right church without the scriptures?

How can anyone know which texts are sacred scripture without the Church?

The Church wrote the New Testament; the New Testament did not create the Church.

 

[Albion]

How can anyone know which texts are sacred scripture without the Church?

I know that people do say that. I have read it here on CF enough to know that it is a taught, memorized, favorite thing to say.

But it doesn't actually make sense. Regardless of who first proclaimed these books (as a collection) to be revelation, it is the revelation that matters, not the "proclaimers."

If you were to discover the medicine that cures cancer, you would be famous, but it still is the medicine that does the curing, not your reputation!

And by the way, the councils that canonized the Bible were not even Ecumenical Councils with the special standing that Ecumenical Councils have.

 

[ripple the car]

I know that people do say that. I have read it here on CF enough to know that it is a taught, memorized, favorite thing to say.

But it doesn't actually make sense. Regardless of who first proclaimed these books (as a collection) to be revelation, it is the revelation that matters, not the "proclaimers."

If you were to discover the medicine that cures cancer, you would be famous, but it still is the medicine that does the curing, not your reputation!

And by the way, the councils that canonized the Bible were not even Ecumenical Councils with the special standing that Ecumenical Councils have.

That sort of still doesn't answer the question, though.

How do we know, for sure, that Scripture is Scripture? Are our Bibles missing some books, or are there too many? We trust that what we have is Scripture, but getting into the pre-Reformation history of Scripture, and how Scripture was handled, viewed, interpreted, and followed brings to light a world that is simply not Protestant. Not Sola Fidé. Not Sola Scriptura. Not Solus Christus as would have been acceptable to the Reformers. But a Mary venerating, Saints imploring, Pope honoring, indulgences granting, Purgatory-affirming, relics venerating, very, very, very not Protestant world.

That is what I have discovered, and it's pretty cool. And worth looking into.

 

[Albion]

That sort of still doesn't answer the question, though.

How do we know, for sure, that Scripture is Scripture? Are our Bibles missing some books, or are there too many? We trust that what we have is Scripture, but getting into the pre-Reformation history of Scripture, and how Scripture was handled, viewed, interpreted, and followed brings to light a world that is simply not Protestant.

No, that really doesn't change anything, GS. For all that we can say about the process, the codification, the decision, etc., it is still Scripture that was proclaimed to be divine revelation, the inspired word of God, not the people who put the stamp of approval on those books.

Put another way, those people accomplished something important, but it is the product of their work which matters most of all...and that is what they were assembled there to do, not to make themselves the final word on God's will and intentions for us believers.

 

[ripple the car]

No, that really doesn't change anything, GS. For all that we can say about the process, the codification, the decision, etc., it is still Scripture that was proclaimed to be divine revelation, the inspired word of God, not the people who put the stamp of approval on those books.

Put another way, those people accomplished something important, but it is the product of their work which matters most of all...and that is what they themselves tol the church is our guide, not themselves.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhh. And yet canonization was simply one event in the historical and theological life of a body of Christian thought, practice, action, belief, and worship which, still, was not Protestant. You see what I'm getting at?

 

[Albion]

Ehhhhhhhhhhhh. And yet canonization was simply one event in the historical and theological life of a body of Christian thought, practice, action, belief, and worship which, still, was not Protestant. You see what I'm getting at?

Apparently not.

First, Protestantism itself is not the issue; and second, the life of the church, thought, practice, action, etc. includes the Bible, so how can that fit with an argument against the authority of Scripture?