"Solo Scriptura" (scripture alone) vs. "Holy Tradition"

[Ainesis]

Yay, I get to post this little bit for the third time in the forums.

Proof that the Church is the authority that chooses which books go in the Bible, coming right up........



How bout them apples?

Well, just a little bit tart. I prefer Granny Smiths myself.

Maybe I am missing someting, but the text you provided does not prove:

• That the "Church" is the authority that chooses which books go in the Bible
• That the "Church" is the author of Scripture, which is the question at hand for the moment

The text you offer only shows that the council was instrumental in coming to agreement on a standard of canon. This also does not negate the fact that:

• The inspiration of Scripture is not something conferred by the Church, only acknowledged by the Church
• There was large agreement on what was canon prior to this declaration. The majority of what was included was what was already considered canon at the time.

So, while your post is a wonderful historical reference to how the Church came to formally recognize what was inspired, it does not convey to the Church any authority over the Scriptures creation or interpretation.

Got any pears?

 

[Ainesis]

The question is: who decides which books are Scripture? The Bible didn't come with a table of contents.

God does, because He is the one who inspired them.

 

[Lotar]

God does, because He is the one who inspired them.

How do you know which are and which aren't?

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

God does, because He is the one who inspired them.

Of course God knows. I wouldn't challenge that. I was just saying that you rely on an authority to tell you which books belong in the Bible.

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

Got some pears right here.

That the "Church" is the authority that chooses which books go in the Bible

If the Church chose a different set of books, you would most likely use the set that the Church chose in 387 A.D.

That the "Church" is the author of Scripture, which is the question at hand for the moment

The writers of the NT were members of the Church. That is why we say that the Church wrote the Scripture. Peter was the first Pope, and (giving a nod to my Orthodox friend) the other Apostles were Patriarchs and bishops of their respective dioceses.

The inspiration of Scripture is not something conferred by the Church, only acknowledged by the Church

True. I won't contest that. But if the Church acknowledged a different canon, you probably would, too.

There was large agreement on what was canon prior to this declaration. The majority of what was included was what was already considered canon at the time.

Some books were in dispute. For example, what if I say that James does not belong in the canon? I have the Holy Spirit on my side, just like, say, Martin Luther. How do you refute that without saying "because the Church said so"? The ultimate question is: by whose authority? (note: this question is one reason why I turned Catholic)

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Interesting site....
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm

Forgive me...

 

[Reader Nilus]

Revelation and Interpretation
Outside of the Gospels and Acts, all the rest of the New Testament including the Apocalypse are letters, sent to address very real concerns at the time. Given that letters were not sent to address subjects where there were no problems involved that means a great deal of Church practice is not even mentioned in the New Testament. What that means is that the Bible itself is not a complete picture of New Testament Church life. Where we know what that practice was is in the truth that has been handed down to us, that is Tradition. The Bible itself is part of that Tradition. Not only that but the Tradition also tells us how to read the text, so that we read it the way it was meant to be read. The Bible by itself will as we see gives rise to all sorts of different readings which St Vincent of Lerins writing shortly after the canon of the New Testament was set at the Council of Carthage in 397 observed.
See the COMMONITORY of St Vincent of Lerins We see today he was right on target when people did not look for the way the text has always been read, we have thousands of different sects all claiming the Bible as their authority, which if it were, why are there so many sects?
Jeff the Finn

 

[RonBa]

Where in the Bible does it talk of the bread having symbols on it?


It doesn't thats my point...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do they do with the leftovers? They throw them in the trash....
The body and blood of Christ just went into the trash?

The bread is burnt

You still discarded the body of Christ, it's supposed to be consumed by the priests and deacons, never discarded.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about Baptism, does it say anywhere in scripture to dunk 3 times in running cold water? (see the didache)

The Bible does not say you get dunked 3 times, Jesus was put under once.

Wrong, Jesus was baptised in the tradionial manner... (See the didache http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-lake.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about chrismations, what words are to be used? how is it to be performed? (most churches just leave this out)

Christmas is a pagan festival, It is not mentioned in the Bible.

Chrismation has nothing to do with Christmas...it's the seal of the Holy Spirit after Baptism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about the sacrement of burial, is creamation or imbalming proper?

The Bible does not talk of any right or wrong way to bury a person.

It doesn't thats my point...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What was the name of the writer of Revelations? (The actual scribes name)

John

Wrong... it's Prochorus, he's not in scripture (he was the scribe on Patmos with John)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the name of the woman at the well?

I do not think we are told.

Her name is Photini (her name is not in scripture)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are all parts of "Holy Tradition" (that which has been handed down) and are not meant to be discarded.

I hope you see that "Holy Tradition" is a must when reading scripture.

I have heard it said, and I quote, "The "Holy Tradition" is the lense through which the scriptures are to be interpreted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To me what I need to know about Salvation is in the Bible.

My replies are plain for all to see.

I would like to invite you to a thread http://www.christianforums.com/t727173
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not post these things to be argumentative, only to educate people about Orthodoxy.

Forgive me...

It would be far better not to shout please. You can get your point across without shouting.

 

[Ainesis]

Got some pears right here.

Thanks! Those are my favorites.

If the Church chose a different set of books, you would most likely use the set that the Church chose in 387 A.D.

I disagree with this on a number of levels.

1. There are different sets of books in circulation now. There continues to be debates about which set of books are inspired. How has the Church decision resulted in a uniform set of books for all Christian?
2. That statement assumes that the Church's acknowledgement of what was canon was somehow an impartation of inspiration into what was canon. IOW, what is inspired by God is not a result of human consensus. If the council had chosen a set of books that were not inspired, then the council would have just been wrong.
3. That statement credits the church with only what God can do. Only God knows what is inspired and the Church can only acknowledge this to the extent that it follows the leading of the Spirit. So, if the Church selected the proper canon, the credit is due to God, not the Church.
4. That statement assumes that had the council confirmed uninspired text as the canon, God would have been either unable or unwilling to rectify that and ensure the preservation of the inspired text.

The writers of the NT were members of the Church. That is why we say that the Church wrote the Scripture.

I understand that, but I believe it is still an incorrect statement. A "member" of the church is not the "church." The most you could say - and be historically accurate - is that members of the Church wrote the NT Scriptures. However, the statement that the Church wrote the Scriptures is faulty on many levels.

Peter was the first Pope, and (giving a nod to my Orthodox friend) the other Apostles were Patriarchs and bishops of their respective dioceses.

I understand that this is your belief.

True. I won't contest that. But if the Church acknowledged a different canon, you probably would, too.

I would refer to the bullets above.

Some books were in dispute. For example, what if I say that James does not belong in the canon? I have the Holy Spirit on my side, just like, say, Martin Luther. How do you refute that without saying "because the Church said so"? The ultimate question is: by whose authority? (note: this question is one reason why I turned Catholic)

Again, I would turn to the Lord. He is the author of Scripture and He knows what is inspired and what is not. In the end, all determination of what is inspired is made by God, even if He uses the Church to confirm this.

 

[BBAS 64]

The question is: who decides which books are Scripture? The Bible didn't come with a table of contents.

Good day, Archbishop10-K

The question from a Roman Catholic's point of view is not who but what decides, the position of the Roman Catholic Church is that the history is what proves which books make up the cannon. The major point of contention is how well did "they" live up to historical standards.

The Bible as Historical Truth



Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility. Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the character of doctrinal infallibility.

We have thus taken purely historical material and concluded that a Church exists, namely, the Catholic Church, which is divinely protected against teaching doctrinal error. Now we are at the last premise of the argument.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

The Church only tells you that they are inspired, not that you needed them to tell you that , a simple review of early church writings will show that Scripture is divinely inspired.


Gregory of Nyssa: "For that there is a Word of God, and a Spirit of God, powers essentially subsisting, both creative of whatever has come into being, and comprehensive of things that exist, is shown in the clearest light out of the Divinely-inspired Scriptures." (The Great Catechism, 4)

Justin Martyr:

"Pay attention, therefore, to what I shall record out of the holy Scriptures, which do not need to be expounded, but only listened to." - Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 55)


Peace to u,

Bill

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Thanks! Those are my favorites.


I disagree with this on a number of levels.

1. There are different sets of books in circulation now. There continues to be debates about which set of books are inspired. How has the Church decision resulted in a uniform set of books for all Christian?
2. That statement assumes that the Church's acknowledgement of what was canon was somehow an impartation of inspiration into what was canon. IOW, what is inspired by God is not a result of human consensus. If the council had chosen a set of books that were not inspired, then the council would have just been wrong.
3. That statement credits the church with only what God can do. Only God knows what is inspired and the Church can only acknowledge this to the extent that it follows the leading of the Spirit. So, if the Church selected the proper canon, the credit is due to God, not the Church.
4. That statement assumes that had the council confirmed uninspired text as the canon, God would have been either unable or unwilling to rectify that and ensure the preservation of the inspired text.

I understand that, but I believe it is still an incorrect statement. A "member" of the church is not the "church." The most you could say - and be historically accurate - is that members of the Church wrote the NT Scriptures. However, the statement that the Church wrote the Scriptures is faulty on many levels.


I understand that this is your belief.


I would refer to the bullets above.


Again, I would turn to the Lord. He is the author of Scripture and He knows what is inspired and what is not. In the end, all determination of what is inspired is made by God, even if He uses the Church to confirm this.

You are very good at making your points, you seem very sober and thoughtful.
I'm glad you are understanding our discussion even if you don't see the catholic side of it... we take it for fact, were as you doubt it.. Oh well..

I think the whole problem here is we are looking at the canon from different ends (pun intended). Our definitions are totally different, and we don't seem to be able to communicate..

Forgive me..

 

[Ainesis]

Revelation and Interpretation
Outside of the Gospels and Acts, all the rest of the New Testament including the Apocalypse are letters, sent to address very real concerns at the time. Given that letters were not sent to address subjects where there were no problems involved that means a great deal of Church practice is not even mentioned in the New Testament. What that means is that the Bible itself is not a complete picture of New Testament Church life.

I would agree here, but I would also say that it does not have to be a "complete picture" of NT Church life. It is, however, a complete picture of what is needed to attain salvation unto eternal life.

Where we know what that practice was is in the truth that has been handed down to us, that is Tradition. The Bible itself is part of that Tradition. Not only that but the Tradition also tells us how to read the text, so that we read it the way it was meant to be read.

Yet, none of the above is supported by Scripture itself.

The Bible by itself will as we see gives rise to all sorts of different readings which St Vincent of Lerins writing shortly after the canon of the New Testament was set at the Council of Carthage in 397 observed.
See the COMMONITORY of St Vincent of Lerins We see today he was right on target when people did not look for the way the text has always been read, we have thousands of different sects all claiming the Bible as their authority, which if it were, why are there so many sects?
Jeff the Finn

If a plethora of interpretations is the indicator that biblical understanding is in error, then that affects the orthodox churches just as much as others, because theirs is but one interpretation among many. Further, there is even divisions on biblical interpretation among the orthodox churches themselves, so what does that reveal about tradition being the sole and accurate interpreter of Scripture?

It would seem to me that neither private interpretation nor tradition are inerrant "lenses" through which Scripture is understood. yet, what does Scripture say is necessary for correct interpretation?

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day, All

Open question to any one who holds to Traditions,

John of Damascus

John of Damascus wrote: (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith)

"For as we said, the honour that is given to the best of fellow-servants is a proof of good-will towards our common Lady [Mary], and the honour rendered to the image passes over to the prototype. But this is an unwritten tradition, just as is also the worshipping towards the East and the worship of the Cross, and very many other similar things." (4:16)

When you worship do you face towards the east? Do you worship the cross and many similar things?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Yes we do face east when we worship, however we do not worship the cross.

Forgive me..

 

[Ainesis]

You are very good at making your points, you seem very sober and thoughtful.
I'm glad you are understanding our discussion even if you don't see the catholic side of it... we take it for fact, were as you doubt it.. Oh well..

I think the whole problem here is we are looking at the canon from different ends (pun intended). Our definitions are totally different, and we don't seem to be able to communicate..

Forgive me..

Hi OrthodoxyUSA,

I don't know how good I am at that. In fact, sometimes people have said my points are downright confusing.

I guess, what you may sense in my posts is a sincere desire for the Truth. As such, I scrutunize, I study, I question, I ask, I suggest, I pray...I do all the things that I am sure we all do, because in the end I don't want to proven right, I want to be on the side of the righteous.

So, if I push hard and question long, it is not because I am seeking to be argumentative, but only because I am seeking Truth.

I am sorry that there seems to be a communication problem, and I hope that we can get past that. I am not sure that I understand what you see to be the nature of the issue, but I can promise that I will continue the dialog with an open mind and heart.

God Bless!

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

When you worship do you face towards the east? Do you worship the cross and many similar things?

Actually, my Catholic parish is built facing the east, towards the rising sun and towards Jerusalem. Many Catholic churches are built facing eastward. This is continued from an old Jewish synagogue practice. This is also why priests used to face away from the people and ad Orientem (Latin, to the East.) So everybody would be facing the same direction.

As for whorshipping the cross, no, I don't, at least, not in today's sense of the word. In John's time, worship did not necessarily attribute divinity. For example, many judges in Britain were and sometimes still are called "your Worship." This is how culture must be taken into consideration. So, I HONOR the cross, which is what John of Damascus meant. If he meant worship in today's sense, that would make him an idolater.

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

The Church only tells you that they are inspired, not that you needed them to tell you that , a simple review of early church writings will show that Scripture is divinely inspired.

But the early Fathers' writings do not tell me WHICH books are inspired. That's why I must rely on the Catholic Church's decision in 387 A.D.

 

[BBAS 64]

Yes we do face east when we worship, however we do not worship the cross.

Forgive me..

Good day, Orthodoxyusa

Why not, John said these are unwritten traditions are you not obligated to follow these based on your own "choice" in the adherance to traditions?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

Again, I would turn to the Lord. He is the author of Scripture and He knows what is inspired and what is not. In the end, all determination of what is inspired is made by God, even if He uses the Church to confirm this.

But what if I turn to the Lord and decide that James is NOT inspired? Or what if I decide the Gospel of Thomas IS inspired? The point being, is that someone is right, and someone else is wrong.

I do not believe that Christianity got it wrong for the first 1500 years since Jesus. I don't believe the Holy Spirit took a vacation for that long. And I certainly don't presume my opinion is greater than the Popes and bishops of the Catholic Church. The problem of authority, when tossing the Catholic Church out, always recurs.

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

Good day, Orthodoxyusa

Why not, John said these are unwritten traditions are you not obligated to follow these based on your own "choice" in the adherance to traditions?

Peace to u,

Bill

I know you're talking to orthodoxy, but in case you didn't notice, I did put up an answer.