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

[Fotina]

lol That IS one of the solas (Solus Christus).

We don't add to Christ, thus no need for Five Solas.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Hentenza lol That IS one of the solas (Solus Christus).

We don't add to Christ, thus no need for Five Solas.

I actually know little about that

http://www.christianforums.com/t7518135/
The Five Solas

Spurred on by a discussion I read in the Orthodox section of this forum, someone brought up an interesting point.

Do the five solas create unneeded dichotomy? For instance Sola Fide? focusing on faith, and splitting it away from works as if they are suppose to be seperate? (blank) as apposed to (blank) What are your thoughts?

 

[Hentenza]

We don't add to Christ, thus no need for Five Solas.

So you don't believe in Solus Christus? Are there more that just Christ in your fold? How about Sola Gratia? Do you believe that we are saved by the grace of God alone or can we save ourselves? Do you believe that glory belongs to God alone (which includes Christ as the second Godhead) or does glory belong to others as well?

 

[Fotina]

Wait. You are making a positive statement in your previous posts which means that you are stating a premise. Are you now saying that all that do not belong to your church have not asked Christ but all that belong to your church have asked Christ?

Sorry, don't follow your argument. You asked the question, and I replied from my heart. I don't know what anyone else has done or make any judgment.

 

[Hentenza]

Sorry, don't follow your argument. You asked the question, and I replied from my heart. I don't know what anyone else has done or make any judgment.

I have also asked Christ. When I asked you which churches (and listed some) claim to have Christ as their head your answer is ask Christ. The implication of such as answer is that you have asked Christ and the rest need to ask Christ. So, are you saying that the congregants of any other church except yours have not asked Christ?

 

[Fotina]

No, EO do not have Five Solas. We have ONE Head of the Church, Jesus Christ.

lol That IS one of the solas (Solus Christus).

We don't add to Christ, thus no need for Five Solas.

So you don't believe in Solus Christus?

I said:

No, EO do not have Five Solas. We have ONE Head of the Church, Jesus Christ.

 

[Hentenza]

I said:

And I asked you:

So you don't believe in Solus Christus? Are there more that just Christ in your fold? How about Sola Gratia? Do you believe that we are saved by the grace of God alone or can we save ourselves? Do you believe that glory belongs to God alone (which includes Christ as the second Godhead) or does glory belong to others as well?

Simple yes or no to each will do.

 

[Fotina]

The implication of such as answer is that you have asked Christ and the rest need to ask Christ. So, are you saying that the congregants of any other church except yours have not asked Christ?

You are making the implication of my sincere reply.

I do not know what others have asked Christ including members of my own church.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

 

[Hentenza]

You are making the implication of my sincere reply.

I do not know what others have asked Christ including members of my own church.

So you don't think that Christ is the head of your church then?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Jesus Christ is the measure of all things not the text about Him.

Also in our norming of disputed dogmas among us? I can assure you. Ask a Mormon if Jesus agrees with some position in the LDS and they will answer "Yes." I find your rubic - do all the various holders of positions feel that Jesus agrees - to be of little to no help. Teachers can be sincere - but sincerely wrong. In all disciplines known to me, the epistemology is such that the embraced norm/rule/canon is sought as OBJECTIVE as possible - something OUTSIDE all, something knowable to all and alterable by none. "My feelings about whether Jesus agrees with ME and not with any that disagree with me" seems not the best, IMO.





.

 

[Thekla]

I think the question would be more to the point -- have you? If so, is there something specific that you can quote, or are you simply implying your view onto theirs?

Of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, I have read the Cathechetical lectures.
Of St. Gregory of Nyssa, his writing on the Lord's Prayer, on the Beatitudes, on the Life of Moses (a classic of growth in the spiritual life, and of apophaticism), and various other works.
I have read other fathers of this era as well; one must be aware in reading that the ground as well as terminology is often not familiar. For example, St. Basil the Great (St. Gregory of Nyssa's brother) defines dogma as what is received and practiced within the Church vs. kerygma, that which is announced also outside of the Church).

If the latter, then how is what you're doing different from the argument of "so many RC's"?

To learn from the fathers, we must first allow them to be themselves, and not our impression of them.

Yes, this is true; and to "know them" we must know more than the words they record, but also the particular rhetorical style in which they write, their particular terminology, their voice, their ithos, their era, their living out, their worship.

That's not the case. Accounting for practice is a relatively straightforward Biblical-Historical interpretive method.

Christianity is a faith, not an interpretive method, not is it an ideology. Though academic approaches may be used within Christianity, academic approaches are not Christianity and in fact, each of the heresies was the result in part of the intellect claiming power over faith and dogma (in St. Basil's usage).

I believe I've asked a number of times for the counterargument about Cyril and Gregory. If there's nothing that stands against it, the quotes stand, being what they said.

So the question becomes, is this for you a matter of intellectual exercise, or accuracy ?

Certainly you must know that basing one's entire view of an author's writing on a few decontextualized lines has no credibility in any sort of analysis.

In your insistence, what exactly is the standard you embrace ?

Even in Scriptural interpretation, such a standard is debased.

Do we note that Christ said that He had no place to lay his head, and form from this that He was really just a lazy whiner ?

 

[heymikey80]

No, EO do not have Five Solas. We have ONE Head of the Church, Jesus Christ.

Really. Bishops don't head up some of your churches? I've met a few of them.

Oh, you mean the ultimate head, and these are just subsidiaries? So how can councils be infallible, should there be Only One Head of the Church?

Clearly councils aren't infallible.

This is sounding more and more like Protestantism every post.

Y'sure there's not a confusion of EO with Protestantism?

In any event, you don't believe it's solely by the grace of God that you're saved? I mean you said you don't have five solas. This would be another sola.

How about the glory of God? Do you believe God has created something that isn't intended ultimately to glorify Him? There's that third sola.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.



St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)



St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

...we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.

(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)



St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.

(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)




.

Thekla,


You have repeatedly made it clear that you disagree with what these Orthodox Church Fathers herein wrote.

Your point has been repeatedly noted. Thank you yet again.

What they herein write IS in conformity with the definition given in the opening post. That's the point I made.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Why call it Sola Scripturat then if in reality it is not completely accurate though Just saying here.

1. I invite and encourage you to read the opening post.



2. The praxis of the Rule of Scripture was often called "sola scriptura" by both Luther and later Calvin because IN EMBRACING A RULE IN NORMING, both embraced one thing - Scripture. Often in civil societies, in the judication of behaviors, we embrace as our norm the law - this practice is often called "The Rule of Law" since law is the one norma normans. Of course, all this is predicated on the embrace of accountability and of course there is arbitration often needed, but the NORM, the RULE, the CANON for such is the law (and only such), ergo "THE Rule (singular) of Law." We could call this praxis, Solus Legis.


3. This thread is not about any other topic. But yes - some Protestants also speak of A DOCTRINE (singular) which is expressed by "Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide." This is ONE DOCTRINE, but we can (and do) speak of those 3 parts of the inseperable, united WHOLE. That's doctrine. And it's a topic for another thread and forum. This one is about a PRAXIS. It's the Rule of Scripture, a praxis Luther and Calvin (and many today) call Sola Scriptura.


Again, read the opening post. I think it will help your understanding enormously. Thanks!


I hope that helps.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Thekla]

What'd Paul use to say that?

Words.

Once again, words describe the territory. QED.

Communicate something to me without words. I'll communicate something to you by my words.

The Apostles knew how to communicate the doctrine of Christ. They did so. Scripture represents it.

"And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual." [1 Cor]

Of course we refer to Scripture, and of course Scripture is extraordinarily important.

In fact, in my experience discussing Sola Scriptura here, it is often the conclusion of Sola Scriptura adherents that to deny SS as defined means that one does not value Scripture.

It is an either/or dichotimizing - it seems to be a way of thinking among SS adherents that refutes any sense of moderation (its Scripture is the thing or nothing) and the reality that Christianity is a way of living.

What of Christ, what of worship, what of faith, what of the spiritual struggle, the spiritual life, what of prayer, what of what was received, and more ?

All these need to be ignored in order to posit the "Scripture only or nothing"; imo, this is symptomatic of "textism".

"And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

Even in the verse you cite from Paul, it is clear that it is in the "power energized" that is the core. And indeed, here he undermines the role of human wisdom to refocus them on what is received from God. Is what is received from God only a text which we intellectually analyze, without the living ? Can we understand this text through intellect alone ? Perhaps, but then we risk by full resort to the intellect that the heart of the Scripture is not known (and recall that 'rightly divide' indicates to cut through to the heart as it were).

 

[Thekla]

Thekla,


You have repeatedly made it clear that you disagree with what these Orthodox Church Fathers herein wrote.

Your point has been repeatedly noted. Thank you yet again.

What they herein write IS in conformity with the definition given in the opening post. That's the point I made.

You distort what I say.

 

[Fotina]

So you don't think that Christ is the head of your church then?

We have ONE Head of the Church, Jesus Christ.

We do not add to Jesus Christ.

We sing at every Orthodox Divine Liturgy worldwide:

"One is Holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the Glory of God the Father, Amen."

 

[Thekla]

We don't add to Christ, thus no need for Five Solas.

Is this a sort of mysticism, to say that there are 5 "alones" ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

We do not add to Jesus Christ.

So you have no practices, no teachings, no moralities - Just Jesus.
Got it.

If NOTHING but Jesus exists in your denomination, nothing else matters, then you have no interest in this topic - because truth/correctness in dogmas doesn't matter to you. But SOME disagree with you - and thus it DOES matter to us if what is taught is true. Perhaps you'd like to leave this whole discussion (and this thread) to those who think other issues matter? If you don't care about teachings, worship, etc. why do you care about how Christians determine whether they are true/correct/valid and what norma normans they may use? Obviously, you don't.





.