The Rule of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it)

CaliforniaJosiah said:

No. A praxis is a practice. Driving (typically) on the right hand side of the road in the USA is a practice. No, it is not predicated on anything and it's not a dogma.


ALL practices are applications of something - to that I agree. Those that embrace this practice also embrace accountability, my experience is that those that don't do not. And those that accept the reliability of Scripture see soundness is embracing Scripture as the norma normans whereas those that rather view man's wisdom as more reliable are more likely to embrace that (if anything).

This is from the opening post:

Click to expand...

Then we have different definitions of praxis.

heymikey80 said:

But not as authoritative as something else? Is experience more important than what God says is important?

As you've engaged in slighting the opposition again, which has not stated "Scripture only or nothing", I'll mark it out once again as engaging in what you're accusing your opposition of -- marginalization.

Click to expand...

I provided a "disembodied quote" from Cyril of Jerusalem; that those who have fallen asleep intercede for us.

Scripture is part, and the crown of Tradition.
"The rule of faith" underlies the understanding of Scripture.
Dogma is what is received, and is supported by Scripture.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Well, if you added the adjective "correct" to "doctrine" in that statement, you'd have a pretty solid embrace of Sola Scriptura, what you have been condemning and ridiculing for some 4 years (as I recall).





.

Click to expand...

No one is ridiculing! Just not beleiving that SS has been "always" used that is all that has been debated
Of course the scripture is used no one has ever denied that or even dogma such as the Holy Trinity that is NOT SS would have been totally disputed. Just becuase we use scripture that hardly proves that "that is all we use" Then Arius (an example how using scripture alone could lead to heresy) would have been right cause he only messed up one letter and he based that on the Bible.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

So, calling it "The Anti-Christ" and "the worst heresy ever" and many similar statements are embraces and affirmations of the practice? And all the Catholics and Orthodox have been affirming the opening post - all along? And all the Orthodox were quick to agree with the Church Fathers when I quoted them so clearly writing the Sola Scriptura perspective? Have you been reading the same threads I have?


NO one said it's always used. In my Catholic years, I found it rarely used (appropriate since it was condemned).




.

Click to expand...

You know I do not get it. Just so someone says whatever that does not mean that is what our Church proclaims...but that is a bit off topic. What your Catholic years have to do with what EO say about SS? You seem to repeat that a lot and in all honesty it is not helping us communicate here is it?

The bible may not be taught excatly the same way as the SS denominations but we had it at the seminary (for two year's worth) so we are pretty familiar with its "usage" and its "value" . All our students in theology are taking scripture and all and the same applies to RC seminaries so just because one or two priests they do not expound on that knowledge that does not "paint" the churches as "anti-scripture"

You use some western theologian's writings to interpret the Bible we use the Fathers why do not leave it at that?

CaliforniaJosiah said:

No. A praxis is a practice. Driving (typically) on the right hand side of the road in the USA is a practice. No, it is not predicated on anything and it's not a dogma.

Click to expand...

A praxis is the expression of something.

ALL practices are applications of something - to that I agree. Those that embrace this practice also embrace accountability, my experience is that those that don't do not. And those that accept the reliability of Scripture see soundness is embracing Scripture as the norma normans whereas those that rather view man's wisdom as more reliable are more likely to embrace that (if anything).

Click to expand...

So among SS adherents, praxis may or may not reflect a belief.

This is not the understanding for everyone.

HeyMikey,

I have provided a quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem.
Here, from St. Gregory of Nyssa:

" ... for it is enough proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them."


Against Eunomius, book 4 (page 163 in volume V, of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Schaff, 1979 reprint):

And another from St. Gregory of Nyssa:


The question is, as I said, very difficult to deal with: yet, if we should be able to find anything that may give support to the uncertainty of our mind, so that it may no longer totter and waver in this monstrous dilemma, it would be well: on the other hand, even if our reasoning be found unequal to the problem, we must keep for ever, firm and unmoved, the tradition which we received by succession from the fathers, and seek from the Lord the reason which is the advocate of our faith: and if this be found by any of those endowed with grace, we must give thanks to Him who bestowed the grace; but if not, we shall none the less, on those points which have been determined, hold our faith unchangeably.

From "On Not Three Goods; To Ablabius", quote on p. 331 in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol V, ed. Schaff, 1979 reprint


And so, I have provided two quotes from St. Gregory of Nyssa, and one from St. Cyril of Jerusalem which, according to the standard that was established in this thread, is more than sufficient as counterclaim.

As to your continuing harping on disagreeing with what two of your Orthodox Church Fathers' wrote, we all understand that. You've noted that many times now, we get it. They were quoted NOT because you agree with what they wrote but because what they wrote well conforms to what we mean by Sola Scriptura, the quotes well confirm to what is expressed in the definition and in the opening post. I KNOW you disagreed with what they posted, I really do.

Click to expand...

The Fathers you quoted were taken out of their context;second they are agree to the tradition first and then to the SS prove then there was SS "concept" back then? If that was so then we would not need councils to "prove" a heresy.. The norma normans of the bible would have been enough as I said before ARious used just that .

Thekla said:

HeyMikey,

I have provided a quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem.
Here, from St. Gregory of Nyssa:

" ... for it is enough proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them."


Against Eunomius, book 4 (page 163 in volume V, of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Schaff, 1979 reprint):

Click to expand...

That's okay, the quartodecimians used the same argument. Good for them, they were successionists as well.

Note that it's "enough proof" that the churches received the tradition from the Apostles -- and yet it's quite clear that Tradition from successionist churches is often dictated not by history, but by development over time.

That's not "handed down". That's "built up".

It's good that we can see the Scripture, still. But Tradition -- the line's been corrupted with too many liberties. Either demonstrate with some conviction that the tradition has indeed come from the Apostles, or the Scriptures remain the only group of writings we all agree have come from the Apostles.

The early church fathers believed in the authority of scripture. You can just about reconstruct the bible in its entirety using the 2nd century ecfs alone. Jesus used scripture to refute the "T"radition holding Jewish leaders of His time. God gave us His special revelation. The apostles even told us to only believed what came from them either orally or written. They exhorted us not to believe any information that came from other sources. The scriptures IS (I use the singular because it is one) the oral and written apostolic teachings as inspired by the Holy Spirit. There is no other authority.

The concept of the sole authority of scripture has always been believed not the sharing of authority with the ever evolving and somewhat blurry concept of "T'radition. No two churches have the same "T"raditions. Not even 2 of those churches that self call apostolic churches have the same "T"raditions. Most can't even quantify "T"raditions. If I were to ask you for a list of the EO "T"radition you would reply that they are all over the teachings just like the RC answers the query with "read the catechism". However, as a praxis most members of these churches do not even agree on all or even part of the interpretations of such documents or teachings by their own church. You can plainly see it by following threads in both TAW and OBOB. The reason for this is that, even among the core doctrines, the lines of demarcation are quite blurry between teaching and practice.

It is quite a chore for the rank and file apostolic church congregant to become familiar enough with the extensive catechisms out there. The chore is analogous to a Jew attempting to remember and follow all 613 commandments of the law. To the rank and file member is almost impossible.

The bible, on the other hand, never changes. It is always the same. It is written and quantifiable. Anyone can make a list of what it teaches. Sure, there are variations of translations but that is a product of translation and scholar disagreement. However, it is not a fault of scripture but a fault of man just as the different, sometimes polar opposite, interpretations and recordings (or lack there of) of "T"raditions are the fault of man. Man can not not err. It is our nature since we are not perfect nor are we going to be perfect until we stand with God in Heaven. Holding "T"raditions that are inherently human as coauthoritative with scriptures with are inherently divine is a non sequitur. It simply does not follow and can not follow given the inherent nature comparison of both.

Thekla said:

I have provided a quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

One that doesn't oppose sola scriptura in any sense I'm aware of. So you're saying Cyril was of the opinion that the prayers of the dead are an infallible teaching from the Apostles, that can't be concluded from Scripture?

I know lots of people who infer things from Scripture, but who don't hold to them as infallible doctrine. Many are sola scripturists.

What've you demonstrated? That Cyril is a lot like sola scripturists of today? Hm.

heymikey80 said:

One that doesn't oppose sola scriptura in any sense I'm aware of. So you're saying Cyril was of the opinion that the prayers of the dead are an infallible teaching from the Apostles, that can't be concluded from Scripture?

I know lots of people who infer things from Scripture, but who don't hold to them as infallible doctrine. Many are sola scripturists.

What've you demonstrated? That Cyril is a lot like sola scripturists of today? Hm.

Click to expand...

How can the Fathers have believed in SS while they agreed with the councils? if you go on SS then would you also agree with Tradition? Just curious to where you are all getting to? If they Fathers were SS they would not have abided to the Tradition of the Church period! Instead of nitpicking on the Fathers why not just say that they used Scripture? The whole idea of using scripture is NOT in opposition to Tradition as scripture comes from the same Tradition. Now if you want to prove the opposite go ahead but do tell us WHERE you see the aftermentioned Fathers to deny Tradition. They just do not.

Just because I like chocolate ice-cream also does not mean I like it "solo"

What've you demonstrated? That Cyril is a lot like sola scripturists of today? Hm.

Click to expand...

That is false as ST. Cyril was NEVER SS in reality as he accepted all concils up to his time and was a Bishop of the church (The one historical Church) . Not too many SS of our timed fall into this category.

Dear Josiah ...

The Fathers said many things as well all christian writers what you fail to see is that you quote these quote mines out of context and you are creating a "mosaic" of saying. This is called taking the verses/ writings out of their context. This method of doing theology is not applicable to EOs. ONLY the decisions of the councils are establishing "dogma" that is infallable. NOT the writings of the Fathers the writtings that by the way are just snipets out of context, are just opinions...Anyone can have opinions...I remember you used to say that we are 'following" the Tradition of our church...well we do but still we are human beings with unofficial ones. There is no dogma to my knowledge that agrees with what you say or it will add an ounce of value to what the Church has already proclaimed.

The Fathers are obviously are not establishing SS as such was NEVER the dogma of the Church. The decisions of the councils were the only decisions that were considered infallable. So what the Fathers say is moot.

BTW all the quotes for St. C and ST. B are all quotes from pastoral letters so of course he would encourage his faithful to follow the scriptures. They were not teaching dogma or theology but were pastoral writings Just viewing them one can realize this no need to be a theologian indeed.