AgLiving06 said:

---

North Dallas Forty oz. said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

What canonical teachings do you think are excluded with Sola Scriptura?

---

Not really sure what you're asking. No teaching of Scripture is excluded under Sola Scriptural.

---

So what is excluded from RCC/EOC?

---

Sola scriptura excludes the infallibility of popes and councils.

Quote:

---

If the teachings of the fathers (alone or in some church-determined consensus) is held infallible, then they (alone or in the church-determined consensus) are treated as having the same authority as God-breathed Scripture. Infallibility is infallibility. There's no hierarchy of infallibility.

---

this creates a tautology. Why do you accept the NT canon? If you don't believe that the text was preserved by God, how do you think it came to be? Consensus?

Again, the Bible says the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. What do you think that means?

The same reason the scriptures are infallible is why the church is infallible and why the teaching of the church is infallible - because by the guidance and leadership of the Holy Spirit they are continued today. You have no clear derivation of how the scriptures are infallible or why. I do - I can tell you. Because the church says so, and the church is lead and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Quote:

---

I am not whitewashing anything. The Reformers cited the church fathers to show that their ideas were not novel. Your Calvin quote proves that where he found they disagreed with each other, he didn't give them much weight relative to Scripture.

---

frankly, that's incorrect. Go reread the quote from Calvin. "All but Augustine." That's not "hey this is unclear". That's picking and choosing to develop your own doctrine, consensus aside. And again...they were novel. Period. And they became more novel over time, once they loosed the protection the tradition provides all kinds of heresy entered.

Quote:

---

The Schisms I was referring to are those in the 5th century and 11th century, resulting in multiple irreconcilable understandings of what the church fathers taught. It's not as if Sola Scriptura destroyed church unity. I don't seek to drive wedges among church fathers to justify what the Reformers did. The Schisms that predated the Reformation highlight the different understandings of patristic consensus on their own.

---

OK. So why are you not an Arian? Why do you believe in the Trinity? Or in the full divinity of the Holy Spirit? How many wills does Christ have? Is He fully God and fully Man? Without the councils and the resolution of the schism, you have no answer and no way to formulate a response.

Quote:

---

Will the real patristic consensus please stand up? The EOC is not, after all, the only church that claims exclusive ownership of that. A simple explanation is that church councils of all stripes (like the admittedly sometimes-errant individuals who manned them) are fallible. A similar assertion resulted in a bounty on Luther's head--a fact which ought to call into question the authenticity of any forged consensus.

---

Ok. So you say apostolic succession is good - you should be Roman, Orthodox, or Coptic... right? What excuse do you have for none?

And the ecumenical councils aren't that simple. Ecumenical councils spoke with specific language. Read their canons. Read their claims. Let them speak for themselves instead of whatever you've read in books. The answer is simple: either the Holy Spirit guides the church or were on our own. If we're on our own nobody has then fullness of truth. And if no one does the church is lost, and the scriptures lie.

Quote:

---

For example, the EOC says that a council is ecumenical if it's ultimately accepted by the whole church. But Chalcedon was rejected by Syria and Egypt. So, they're booted out, not gonna be in the church. This results in a circularity--the councils are ecumenical if they're accepted by the whole church, and the church is defined by acceptance of the ecumenical councils. What we end up with is an utterly autonomous church, which endorses statements like the following from Archimandrite Chrysostomos and Archimandrite Auxentios in Scripture and Tradition (Center for Traditional Orthodox Studies, 1994):

---

that's not quite how the Orthodox Church views ecumenical councils. And still. Does Christ have one will or two? It is that simple. There is a correct answer. Both churches can't be right.

I know Archbishop Chrysostomos and Bishop Auxentios personally. In a large part I am Orthodox because of my long correspondence with Archbishop Chrysostomos. So I can tell you, there is no way that quote can or should be taken the way you are. I am not certain, not seeing the point he's trying to make, but I suspect that he is emphasizing that the Holy Spirit and Christ are in fact two different people, two unique hypostases of God. Christ is our Lord and Savior and Master and God. Yet the Holy Spirit is the guide and leader and head of the church. However, to suggest that they would not be in unity would suggest a schism in the Godhead itself.

Again, councils aren't infallible. The church is, as the body of Christ. You're not getting it.

Quote:

---

this creates a tautology. Why do you accept the NT canon? If you don't believe that the text was preserved by God, how do you think it came to be? Consensus?

Again, the Bible says the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. What do you think that means?

The same reason the scriptures are infallible is why the church is infallible and why the teaching of the church is infallible - because by the guidance and leadership of the Holy Spirit they are continued today. You have no clear derivation of how the scriptures are infallible or why. I do - I can tell you. Because the church says so, and the church is lead and guided by the Holy Spirit.

---

Scriptures are the Word of God, as testified by Scripture itself, the traditions of every branch of Christianity (and Judaism for the OT). Their basic reliability is confirmed in the archaeological record every time a shovel turns over in Palestine. I don't need an infallible church to believe that the early church was inerrant in recognizing the authentic writings.

Similarly, I don't need an infallible pastor to believe that he preached the truth today. And, generally, that's the meaning of 1 Tim 3:15. The church is to preach the true gospel, as memorialized for all generations in Scripture. Paul means simply what he says elsewhere in Romans 10:17. The church is to proclaim the truth of the gospel, in order to bring about faith among hearers. Neither verse is a guarantee of continuous, unbroken infallibility.

Quote:

---

frankly, that's incorrect. Go reread the quote from Calvin. "All but Augustine." That's not "hey this is unclear". That's picking and choosing to develop your own doctrine, consensus aside. And again...they were novel. Period. And they became more novel over time, once they loosed the protection the tradition provides all kinds of heresy entered.

---

"Even though the Greeks above the rest and Chrysostom especially among them extol the ability of the human will, yet all the ancients, save Augustine, so differ, waver, or speak confusedly on this subject, that almost nothing certain can be derived from their writings." That concluding bit looks exactly like, "hey this is unclear."

Quote:

---

OK. So why are you not an Arian? Why do you believe in the Trinity? Or in the full divinity of the Holy Spirit? How many wills does Christ have? Is He fully God and fully Man? Without the councils and the resolution of the schism, you have no answer and no way to formulate a response.

---

Those councils got it right. It does not follow that I have to concede that any of the churches that adopted the decisions of those councils are infallible.

Quote:

---

Ok. So you say apostolic succession is good - you should be Roman, Orthodox, or Coptic... right? What excuse do you have for none?

---

Did I say apostolic succession is good? Is that what you got from, "Will the real patristic consensus please stand up?" The point is that even assuming, arguendo, that there is an infallible church, I'd still have to pick it out. And I'd be limited to those 3 only if I rule out the possibility that the infallible church is one that doesn't go around expressly claiming infallibility.

Quote:

---

So I can tell you, there is no way that quote can or should be taken the way you are. I am not certain, not seeing the point he's trying to make, but I suspect that he is emphasizing that the Holy Spirit and Christ are in fact two different people, two unique hypostases of God. Christ is our Lord and Savior and Master and God. Yet the Holy Spirit is the guide and leader and head of the church. However, to suggest that they would not be in unity would suggest a schism in the Godhead itself.

---

There is no way to interpret that quote in a way that would make it acceptable. Here's how Joseph Hromdaka used it originally:

Quote:

---

[T]he Church has the final norm and criterion of truth in herself. There is no higher authority beyond the Church since the Church is the primary reality, the source and foundation of all redemptive knowledge and life. Not even Christ should be understood and looked upon as authority to which the Church is subordinated. The Church is the Incarnate Christ, His life is her life . . . . After His incarnation, the Church is the only mode of His existence.

---

Scripture says the church is the bride of Christ and is subject to Him. If your ecclesiology leads you to the conclusion that the church isn't subject to Christ's authority, you've gone wrong somewhere. Similarly, if your theory of church authority leads to the conclusion that Christ is ontologically dependent upon the church--instead of the other way around--you've made a misstep.

North Dallas Forty oz. said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

North Dallas Forty oz. said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

What canonical teachings do you think are excluded with Sola Scriptura?

---

Not really sure what you're asking. No teaching of Scripture is excluded under Sola Scriptural.

---

So what is excluded from RCC/EOC?

---

Sola scriptura excludes the infallibility of popes and councils.

---

Does it though? (I, and everyone outside of the RCC agrees with you on both btw).

It seems if I wanted to take a Sola Scriptura approach, I could look at Acts 15 as a model for how councils should run.

We have a very clear model for how to run a council were a major biblical decision is made.

Even with Peter, a Sola Scriptura approach could lead me to Matthew 16:18 where the "keys of the Kingdom" could mean infalliability (it doesn't).

But as K2 pointed out, only Rome things the Pope is infalliable, and I don't think anybody thinks "councils" are infalliable.

So both really could be included in your view of Sola Scriptura.

Quote:

---

Scriptures are the Word of God, as testified by Scripture itself, the traditions of every branch of Christianity (and Judaism for the OT). Their basic reliability is confirmed in the archaeological record every time a shovel turns over in Palestine. I don't need an infallible church to believe that the early church was inerrant in recognizing the authentic writings.

---

Criteria for scripture is more than archaeological accuracy and authentically written. Many of the NT books don't even have a claimed author.

The early church? Just when do you think the canon was "fixed"? There are some variances here and there up through and beyond the council of Ferrara-Florence.

Anyone can write a book that is historically factual and chock full of theological errors. The scriptures simply are not the basis of our religion. Christ is.

"I don't need an infallible church to believe that the early church was inerrant in recognizing the authentic writings. " That seems awfully convenient. So the church sometimes enjoys inerrance, but only when it comes to the scriptures? And, when was the canon closed? Since the canon was arguably fluid to some extent for centuries (including into the Reformation, with some Reformers arguing to remove certain books from the Bible) when does the church's inerrance on the topic end?

Never mind the fact that scripture clearly says that verbal instruction of the apostles is also God's word - "we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God." Christ tells the Apostles "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you." In John 17 He prays for those who will believe in Him through the Apostle's word.

Quote:

---

Similarly, I don't need an infallible pastor to believe that he preached the truth today. And, generally, that's the meaning of 1 Tim 3:15. The church is to preach the true gospel, as memorialized for all generations in Scripture. Paul means simply what he says elsewhere in Romans 10:17. The church is to proclaim the truth of the gospel, in order to bring about faith among hearers. Neither verse is a guarantee of continuous, unbroken infallibility.

---

Lots of "I" involved here. And sadly, you're simply wrong.

Let's examine this idea. St Paul says that the Church is "the pillar and the base of the truth". At a plain face reading this means the truth rests on the Church, is supported by the Church. The Church as a structure is a common expression for him. Elsewhere he says the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord." He also says he is a master builder, and "no one is able to lay another foundation, besides the one being already laid, which is Jesus Christ" echoing Isaiah 28:16. The word pillar (stylos) is the same as what 1 Kings 7 uses for the bronze pillars that support the entrance to the Temple. And it's no doubt that this is what is called to mind in Rev. 3:12 where it says to hold fast to what you have so that no one will take your crown, and every victor He will make into a pillar in the temple of God.

It's almost as if St Paul views the truth as being supported by the Church, which itself is supported by the Apostles and prophets, and ultimately by Christ as the Chief cornerstone; and built with and in Him and the Spirit. One Church, not many. Unity, not division.

St Paul tells the Ephesians that God purchased the Church with His own blood. He writes in his letter to them that the Church is His body - often quoted, right? But what comes next is often overlooked "...the fullness of Him filling all in all." The Church, like us, is filled to the fullness of Christ. And of course, we have Christ's words that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church. This last is mystical language, much like the relationship with Christ and His Church as a bride.

We can't simply alter the picture painted to "the Church will preach true gospel from Scripture". That's flatly not what it says. Protestants love the plain face reading of scripture until it contradicts their pre-conceived notions. Again, we arrive at the tie - scripture and scripture. What support do you have for your interpretation? I have nearly two millennia of consistent, unbroken teaching for mine.

And just what does that mean anyway? "True gospel" and "all generations"? The NT didn't exist in the Apostolic age. Did they teach the "true gospel"? What Scripture memorialized what they taught? Could we say, perhaps, then, that the NT isn't even strictly necessary to the Church? --- You will blanche, but I will respond of course we can say that. The Church was founded before the NT was written. One comes from the other.

Quote:

---

"Even though the Greeks above the rest and Chrysostom especially among them extol the ability of the human will, yet all the ancients, save Augustine, so differ, waver, or speak confusedly on this subject, that almost nothing certain can be derived from their writings." That concluding bit looks exactly like, "hey this is unclear."

---

They all extol the ability of the human will. He says that. I made a list of early quotes, but I didn't post them all because it got too long, but they don't mince words and they unequivocally support free will. The only reason Calvin found this confusing was because he didn't agree with it. He destroyed their basic premise - that man is free - to support that God is sovereign. This is the error of one-sidedness. But he did it in pride and stubbornness, presuming to correct the fathers.

Quote:

---

Those councils got it right. It does not follow that I have to concede that any of the churches that adopted the decisions of those councils are infallible.

---

Based on what? Your own judgment? You know the difference between homoousios and homoiousios? You know the difference between the Spirit as a dynamis vs hypostasis of God? How do you know that Christ Jesus had two natures, that He was fully God and fully man? Or that when He lived, even given an initial human nature, that it wasn't fully assumed by the divine -- with all the soteriological implications for us? How do you know that He has two wills?

If you have insight into these things you are truly enlightened, a great theologian and philosopher and a saint aside.

Quote:

---

Scripture says the church is the bride of Christ and is subject to Him. If your ecclesiology leads you to the conclusion that the church isn't subject to Christ's authority, you've gone wrong somewhere. Similarly, if your theory of church authority leads to the conclusion that Christ is ontologically dependent upon the church--instead of the other way around--you've made a misstep.

---

Shrug. I don't know who Joseph Hromdaka is and I don't have the surrounding point from Archbishop Chrysostomos' book. I can say just from sitting here that even Hromdaka isn't asserting either of those two things. When St Paul says "But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything" I don't think that this is applicable to Hromdaka's point here.

He doesn't say that the Church isn't subject to Christ's authority, but that the Church is not subordinated, can't be subordinated, because the Church is Christ. You're stressing that there is a level of authority between the head and the body; it appears Hromdaka is stressing the utter unity of the body and the head.

The last bolded portion has an ellipsis in front of it, and again, I do not know what he is trying to point out.

At any rate, I am not here to defend him or his teaching. I don't know anything about him, he may well be completely mad. I can write Archbishop Chrysostomos and ask him about it, if you like? Because again, I am confident in Archbishop Chrysostomos' orthodoxy.

And how do you get around the use of deuterocanonical writings in the accepted canon itself?

St Jude quotes Enoch word for word. If the book of Jude is inspired, so is that portion of Enoch, no?

St Paul refers to Jannes and Jambres. Hebrews refers to the Martyrdom of Isaiah and there is an indisputable reference to 2 Maccabees 7.

The book of Sirach is all over the NT. The prophecy of Wisdom of Solomon is fulfilled in Herod's slaying of the infants. 1 and 2 Maccabees are both referenced, as are Baruch, Tobit and Judith.

And nevermind the fact that the OT canon was effectively set by a conciliar approach vis-a-vis the Sanhedrin, and this process continued into the 2nd Century AD!

Quote:

---

Criteria for scripture is more than archaeological accuracy and authentically written. Many of the NT books don't even have a claimed author.

The early church? Just when do you think the canon was "fixed"? There are some variances here and there up through and beyond the council of Ferrara-Florence.

---

The point is that the Scriptures depend on God for authority. The EOC was nowhere in the process between God breathing His word, and the human author moving his pen across paper. The EOC or RCC didn't get final edit.

By about year 150, the Muratorian Fragment included almost all of the books of the NT, including all 4 gospels, Acts, and 13 of Paul's epistles. By 325, Origen was using what we now have in the NT. In 367, Athanasius wrote the following, reflecting the NT we have today:

Quote:

---

Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

---

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

Quote:

---

"I don't need an infallible church to believe that the early church was inerrant in recognizing the authentic writings. " That seems awfully convenient. So the church sometimes enjoys inerrance, but only when it comes to the scriptures? And, when was the canon closed? Since the canon was arguably fluid to some extent for centuries (including into the Reformation, with some Reformers arguing to remove certain books from the Bible) when does the church's inerrance on the topic end?

---

I didn't say "inerrance, but only when it comes to Scriptures." That would mean nothing that the early church said was true, other than the identity of the NT books.

The church is made up of humans capable of error. The teachings of humans are sometimes inerrant, sometimes errant. Any consensus of humans is capable of being erroneous. Even the human effort to define that consensus is capable of error, as shown by historic schisms among churches that claim to exclusively hold to the (apparently elusive) patristic consensus.

Quote:

---

And just what does that mean anyway? "True gospel" and "all generations"? The NT didn't exist in the Apostolic age. Did they teach the "true gospel"? What Scripture memorialized what they taught? Could we say, perhaps, then, that the NT isn't even strictly necessary to the Church? --- You will blanche, but I will respond of course we can say that. The Church was founded before the NT was written. One comes from the other.

---

In the apostolic age, the church had the Apostles in person. Now the church has the Apostles in the form of their writings, not in the form of competing lines of succession in 4 or 5 different churches.

Quote:

---

He doesn't say that the Church isn't subject to Christ's authority, but that the Church is not subordinated, can't be subordinated, because the Church is Christ. You're stressing that there is a level of authority between the head and the body; it appears Hromdaka is stressing the utter unity of the body and the head.

---

In terms of authority, there is a difference between the head and the body. There is a distinction between the Creator and the creature--even the created church. The creature is subordinate. God condescended to man in the world. He didn't elevate a portion of men (in this life anyway) to God.

How far does "the Church is Christ" go? Is the church within the Godhead (not in the sense that it's a quadrinity or something, but that the church has all of the authority of God)?

And even if that were right, how would one know which of the 4 or 5 (maybe more?) churches that claim apostolic succession truly have it? I haven't seen a response to this.

AgLiving06 said:

---

North Dallas Forty oz. said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

North Dallas Forty oz. said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

What canonical teachings do you think are excluded with Sola Scriptura?

---

Not really sure what you're asking. No teaching of Scripture is excluded under Sola Scriptural.

---

So what is excluded from RCC/EOC?

---

Sola scriptura excludes the infallibility of popes and councils.

---

Does it though? (I, and everyone outside of the RCC agrees with you on both btw).

It seems if I wanted to take a Sola Scriptura approach, I could look at Acts 15 as a model for how councils should run.

We have a very clear model for how to run a council were a major biblical decision is made.

Even with Peter, a Sola Scriptura approach could lead me to Matthew 16:18 where the "keys of the Kingdom" could mean infalliability (it doesn't).

But as K2 pointed out, only Rome things the Pope is infalliable, and I don't think anybody thinks "councils" are infalliable.

So both really could be included in your view of Sola Scriptura.

---

No, Sola Scriptura distinguishes between the infallible Creator and fallible creatures--even the creatures that make up the bride of Christ. That's what Augustine said:

Quote:

---

For the oath of God is the assurance of a promise. Man is justly forbidden to swear: lest by the habit of swearing, since a man may be deceived, he fall into perjury. God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible.

---

Each of the church fathers, indwelled and led by the Spirit of Christ, erred. A church comprising present-day teachers, indwelled and led by the Spirit of Christ, trying to collectively discern and maintain the consensus of the church fathers is no less prone to error. Pre-reformation schisms prove that out.

I have a longer response but - quickly - why'd ya leave out St Athanasius saying Baruch was scripture?

k2aggie07 said:

---

I have a longer response but - quickly - why'd ya leave out St Athanasius saying Baruch was scripture?

---

I thought we were focusing on the NT canon. I haven't got a clue about why Athanasius included Baruch in the OT but excluded the rest of the Apocrypha.

Honestly, I think we've beaten this thread to death, and it's well beyond the scope of the 2 original questions. At any rate, the amount of time I can dedicate to Texags is at its limit.

I do appreciate your thoughts, K2, and your willingness to explain your church's position on these issues.

You can have the last word here, but I hope you'll address the issue of which church, assuming that one were convinced that there must be an infallible one someplace.

Scripture is Scripture. St Paul was certainly thinking of the OT when he wrote the famous "all Scripture is God-breathed" phrase to Timothy, or when Christ said "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." St Athanasius, in the letter you quoted, said "For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees". Surely not the NT -- how could it be? A variance in the OT canon is every bit as much of an issue for a sola scriptura type as a variance in the NT.

Anyway, no one said that some bishop was reviewing and editing scripture. But let's take your premise for granted, that God inspires someone and he writes. For every genuine epistle or religious text there are dozens of spurious ones. Who decides? Who culls the spurious texts from the genuine ones?

The answer is the Chruch, collectively. And because the Church is formed of people, lead by the Holy Spirit, the answer is the Apostles, teachers, and preachers of the Church, individually.

The problem with just rattling off early canonical lists is you're missing the purposes of those lists. Those books are not defining a canon as criteria for "scripture" or saying "within these set books lies all knowledge necessary for the Christian". Most of them are saying - often verbatim - these are the books fit to be read in the Church, i.e,. these are for Liturgical use. And in fact, many say books such as the Shepherd of Hermas, while not canonical, are extremely useful for new Christians to study and read.

You brought up the Muratorian fragment - what does it say? "It is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth." And it excludes things from the canon because they cannot be "read publicly to the people in church."

You bring up Origen? Origen claimed Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Baruch and 2 Maccabees as scripture.

St Cyril of Jerusalem (350 AD) clearly said "Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New." and "Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church."

St Augustine, who I imagine you trust, said "Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches."

The council of Laodicea in 363 AD said "Let no private psalms nor any uncanonical books be read in church, but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament." They included Baruch, but not the Revelation of St John.

In fact when we look at early canonical lists, they are nearly unanimous to include Baruch, Tobit, etc. in the OT.

//////

You seem to be saying that if every person in the church isn't infallible then the church can't be infallible. I am repeating myself, but it bears repeating: The claim of ecclesial infallibility is not derived from individual infallibility. At this point I don't know how to say it any more clearly. The Church derives its infallibility only as far as it's relationship to Christ, much as you describe the relationship between Holy Scripture and God.

In other words:
1. God reveals
2. The Prophet speaks, the writer writes, the Apostle teaches
3. Tradition preserves

This whole process is divine, divinely inspired. What good is it for a prophecy to be said and forgotten? For a book to be written and not recognized? For a teaching to be lost? You say the scriptures are inspired - Good! Then what? Why do you trust the book in your hands? Not because of your own investigation into the matter, like St Luke said. Not because you were an eyewitness, like St John. Because the universal Church has said - much as you quoted ancient lists - that these books are trustworthy. That is Holy Tradition. You appeal to it with one side of your mouth and reject it with the other.

"The church has the apostles by their writings"? Sad list indeed! Eusebius says "And the rest of the followers of our Saviour, the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were not ignorant of these things [that Paul knew]. Nevertheless, of all the disciples 4 of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials [gospels], and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity."

Never mind you, St Andrew, St Thomas, St Bartholomew, etc - your contributions to the church ended a long time ago. What a bunch of hooey. Christ didn't tell them to write books, he said to teach all nations and baptize them.

/////

How do you know apostolic succession? The same way you know anything: use your mind, trust in God, and do the leg work to find the answer. The schisms of the Church are on very clear grounds, you can go read them for yourself.

If you reject Christ's divinity, go be Arian. If you reject the divinity of the Holy Spirit or the doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation, be a Pneumatomachian or Eunomian or Sabellian. If you believe in aeons and demiurges and that the flesh is bad, go be a gnostic. If you think that He was just a prophet and we should follow the Law, be an Ebionite. If you reject the two wills and two natures, go be a Coptic Christian. If you reject the Filioque, don't be a Roman Catholic or any of the protestant derivations that hold that teaching. If you affirm the Seven councils, be Orthodox.

Your position seems to be "it's complicated so I will say there is no Church". Or, paraphrasing Voltaire, "a long debate means no one is right". That's a very sad stance to take, because it means Christ's high priestly prayer in John 15-17 is not fulfilled, that there is no church that was brought into or preserved all the truth, and that we're basically all left to our own devices to sort through this. I don't believe this, and I have a hard time believing that you do either. You just seem unwilling to take a hard look at how the scriptures were preserved after they were written.

There is no logical way to affirm an inspired canon without appealing to tradition. None.

North Dallas Forty oz. said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

North Dallas Forty oz. said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

North Dallas Forty oz. said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

What canonical teachings do you think are excluded with Sola Scriptura?

---

Not really sure what you're asking. No teaching of Scripture is excluded under Sola Scriptural.

---

So what is excluded from RCC/EOC?

---

Sola scriptura excludes the infallibility of popes and councils.

---

Does it though? (I, and everyone outside of the RCC agrees with you on both btw).

It seems if I wanted to take a Sola Scriptura approach, I could look at Acts 15 as a model for how councils should run.

We have a very clear model for how to run a council were a major biblical decision is made.

Even with Peter, a Sola Scriptura approach could lead me to Matthew 16:18 where the "keys of the Kingdom" could mean infalliability (it doesn't).

But as K2 pointed out, only Rome things the Pope is infalliable, and I don't think anybody thinks "councils" are infalliable.

So both really could be included in your view of Sola Scriptura.

---

No, Sola Scriptura distinguishes between the infallible Creator and fallible creatures--even the creatures that make up the bride of Christ. That's what Augustine said:

Quote:

---

For the oath of God is the assurance of a promise. Man is justly forbidden to swear: lest by the habit of swearing, since a man may be deceived, he fall into perjury. God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible.

---

Each of the church fathers, indwelled and led by the Spirit of Christ, erred. A church comprising present-day teachers, indwelled and led by the Spirit of Christ, trying to collectively discern and maintain the consensus of the church fathers is no less prone to error. Pre-reformation schisms prove that out.

---

If I take this to it's natural ending, I can't trust the Church Fathers, and I can't trust anything Post-Reformation since the "schisms" have been significantly worse.

So logically, I can't trust anything but the Bible, but then again I likely fall into schism trying to understand the Bible because my fallen nature leads me to error.

But this is directly contradicted by 1 Timothy 3: 15:

Quote:

---

but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

---

So at the end of the day, isn't your entire argument about what should be defined as the "Church?"

Quote:

---

But let's take your premise for granted, that God inspires someone and he writes. For every genuine epistle or religious text there are dozens of spurious ones. Who decides? Who culls the spurious texts from the genuine ones?

The answer is the Chruch, collectively.

---

But not infallibly. The church inerrantly, yet fallibly, identified the infallible books. The canon is a fallible compilation of infallible books.

Quote:

---

You seem to be saying that if every person in the church isn't infallible then the church can't be infallible. I am repeating myself, but it bears repeating: The claim of ecclesial infallibility is not derived from individual infallibility. At this point I don't know how to say it any more clearly. The Church derives its infallibility only as far as it's relationship to Christ, much as you describe the relationship between Holy Scripture and God.

In other words:
1. God reveals
2. The Prophet speaks, the writer writes, the Apostle teaches
3. Tradition preserves

---

I get the theory. It's a mysterious process by which God makes the church infallible, despite it comprising fallible men who do commit error, both individually and collectively. That mysterious process is required to have perfect oral hand-downs in a 2,000-year-old game of telephone. It sounds improbable, but I'll be the first to affirm that it's possible for the living God to work out that kind of miracle.

But that still highlights the problem that you haven't really addressed except with a bunch of "If you believe..." statements (which, as an aside, look like the appeals to yourself/Spririt that you typically criticize). The tradition is defined by its adoption by the church. The church is defined by its adherence to the tradition. It's a circularity, and one propounded by a variety of churches each proclaiming its own infallibility.

Quote:

---

Never mind you, St Andrew, St Thomas, St Bartholomew, etc - your contributions to the church ended a long time ago. What a bunch of hooey. Christ didn't tell them to write books, he said to teach all nations and baptize them.

---

The contributions of the Apostles who were not the human authors of Scripture are not dependent on a continually infallible tradition. How many people are Christians today because the Lord chose and worked through those Apostles to reach the nations? Their contributions to the kingdom are immeasurable.

Your argument that we need some way to preserve their unique teachings depends on the assumption that they taught something unique, or in addition to what is written in Scripture.

Quote:

---

Your position seems to be "it's complicated so I will say there is no Church". Or, paraphrasing Voltaire, "a long debate means no one is right". That's a very sad stance to take, because it means Christ's high priestly prayer in John 15-17 is not fulfilled, that there is no church that was brought into or preserved all the truth, and that we're basically all left to our own devices to sort through this. I don't believe this, and I have a hard time believing that you do either. You just seem unwilling to take a hard look at how the scriptures were preserved after they were written.

There is no logical way to affirm an inspired canon without appealing to tradition. None.

---

Yes, I appeal to a tradition that was capable of error to affirm the canon. The canon is inspired in the sense that it's made up of infallible books. It's not infallible in itself because we do not have a God-breathed table of contents. Of course, if we did have a God-breathed table of contents, your reasoning would still require an infallible church to authenticate that. The ultimate conclusion to your line of thought is that no one can know anything today without an infallible church.

Quote:

---

If I take this to it's natural ending, I can't trust the Church Fathers, and I can't trust anything Post-Reformation since the "schisms" have been significantly worse.

So logically, I can't trust anything but the Bible, but then again I likely fall into schism trying to understand the Bible because my fallen nature leads me to error.

But this is directly contradicted by 1 Timothy 3: 15:

---

Sola scriptura is not necessarily a slippery slope to me and my Bible, though some have clearly gone that way. It's a simple framework for interpreting the Bible in light of learned folks across generations, across cultures--some of whom might have even been westerners born after the 10th century, who found useful ways of thinking and talking about these things. There is a potential middle ground between an infallible tradition, on one hand, and complete disregard for the church fathers and brilliant theologians that have come along throughout the ages, on the other.

Now, I am, of course, horribly fallible. So if I'm wrong, I pray that the Lord will intervene in a mighty way to lead me to His infallible church, wherever it might be found.

Hey you said last word!

So the church could have made a mistake defining the canon, but they didn't? How do we know they didn't?

What's more mysterious about oral tradition than written tradition? Especially when there are so many spurious writings?

At the end of the day you must follow your conscience. There is no other way. But we should follow our conscience in a well-informed, rational way as humans endowed with a rational spirit. In my opinion, before recent times there may have been an excuse for a person to not even be able to really believe the authentic faith, because much of the writings weren't available. In this day and age, there's no reason. The information is there, and it's simple.

Quote:

---

Your argument that we need some way to preserve their unique teachings depends on the assumption that they taught something unique, or in addition to what is written in Scripture.

---

Never, no, this is the root of all heresy, particular Gnostic heresies! There are no secret teachings, there are no secret writings.

My point is that nothing in Tradition contradicts Scripture and nothing in Scripture contradicts Tradition because they both have one temporal source in the Apostles and divine source in Christ Himself.

You basically received a set of books, and with no way to authenticate what was written in them or even whether they were complete or not, you said welp, these are inerrant. Because why? Dunno, somewhere in there it says so. This is a risky way to base your faith.

St Irenaeus dealt with all this silliness way back in the second century. He was arguing against some wild gnostic heresies, which seem ridiculous to us but clearly were a thorn in their side at the time. How does he argue against them? By appealing not only to a single church, or a single bishop -- or even only to scripture. You see, the insidious nature of the gnostic heresy was that they denied the scriptures; or some said they had secret teachings that only a few were initiated into, and that these teachings were not to be found in scripture. There were tons of spurious gospels and "secret" gospels. Marcion cut up the gospel of Luke and said it was the only real one; the Ebionites said that only Matthew was valid, and so on. What this shows is that in the late 100s, 150 years or so after Christ's death, that the general idea of an inspired canon or infallible scriptures wasn't widely accepted as utter fact the way it is today. And so, how do you combat this? Let's see:

Quote:

---

The Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the gospel, and by them we also have learned the truth, that is, the teaching of the Son of God as the Lord said to them, "He who hears you hears Me, and he who despises you despises Me, and Him Who sent Me." For we learned the plan of our salvation from no other than from those through whom the gospel came to us. They first preached it abroad, and then later by the will of God handed it down to us in scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. For it is not right to say that they preached before they had come to perfect knowledge, as some dare to say, boasting that they are the correctors of the apostles. For after our Lord had risen from the dead, and they were clothed with the power from on high when the Holy Spirit came upon them, they were filled with all things and had perfect knowledge. They went out to the ends of the earth, preaching the good things that come to us from God, and proclaiming peace from heaven to all men, all and each of them equally being in possession of the gospel of God
...
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about...For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere...

[He then lists the succession of bishops of Rome. ] ...In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time...Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

---

This is the key. So what does he say?

That scripture and tradition are not two independent sources but one and witness to the same truth, two modes of the same gospel. Therefore even the unlettered and even entire peoples who have no written scripture can believe the same gospel. Having said this, he then continues... "Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth,and that no lie is in Him."

Let's really look at the amazing bit of information we have. St Irenaeus personally saw St Polycarp when he was a youth. St Irenaeus was a bishop in Lyon, southern France. We have Asia (Turkey), Ephesus (Greece), Rome, France, all singing in one note. Not too long after St Irenaeus we begin to have a flood of preserved writings ranging from Carthage to Egypt. The whole known world. And what is the story? That there is one faith, preserved, united. This is an astonishing claim!

St Irenaeus says we can trust the scriptures - the NT scriptures, at this point - precisely because of maintained apostolic succession! Because that they had written what they taught, not the other way around. And we know this because they wrote what they taught publicly. So either St Irenaeus is an exaggerator or a fool, or at the time of his writing he had reason to believe in this one, unbroken fabric of tradition, well before any dogmatic or self-approving defined canon.

Quote:

---

Hey you said last word!

So the church could have made a mistake defining the canon, but they didn't? How do we know they didn't?

What's more mysterious about oral tradition than written tradition?

---

Thanks, K2. I saw a question in AgLiving's post and got sucked back in. I will respond to the bold question to explain my personal impression on the relative mystery of scripture and tradition.

Writings can be self-authenticating, authenticated by church history, and confirmed through objective evidence--internal consistency, consistency across the canon, historical accuracy, dating, writing style, etc. On these bases, the books rise and fall as units.

Tradition is more mysterious, in my view, because of the form it takes. It involves saying, yes, Augustine was right about the sacraments, but be very careful about reading his stuff on soteriology, except that he's useful in combating Pelagianism, but his soteriology outside of that context is generally to be avoided, and ignore (or maybe endorse) his ideas about the filioque, the canon, and so on. So, you end up with a system like this, where you identify where each church father erred and where he spoke in concert with the infallible church tradition. Ultimately, the thing that determines how each of these teachings is to be viewed, is the church's tradition, which resides solely in the church's view of these teachings. That's circular. Does a revelatory nudge to the church do away with that circularity? Sure, if it's there. But I can't think of a picture recorded in Scripture (e.g., a type or shadow in the OT) where God made a prophet out of a body of humans by sporadically-inspiring various prophets within it, to make a consensus within the body, as a whole, continuously infallible.

Quote:

---

But I can't think of a picture recorded in Scripture (e.g., a type or shadow in the OT) where God made a prophet out of a body of humans by sporadically-inspiring various prophets within it, to make a consensus within the body, as a whole, continuously infallible.

---

Um.. Doesn't this basically describe the OT and Israel's role in salvation?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

But I can't think of a picture recorded in Scripture (e.g., a type or shadow in the OT) where God made a prophet out of a body of humans by sporadically-inspiring various prophets within it, to make a consensus within the body, as a whole, continuously infallible.

---

Um.. Doesn't this basically describe the OT and Israel's role in salvation?

---

No, I don't remember any "sporadically-inspired" prophet that taught some mixture of truth and error, so that an infallible Israel (priesthood?) would sift through to find the truth among that prophet's teachings and reject the rest.

I mean...

• God made a prophet out of a body of humans... check, Israel
• Sporadically inspiring various prophets within it... check, unless you think Prophets like David were infallible?
• To make a consensus within the body... check, the oral tradition and Scriptures and Law
• As a whole, continuously infallible... check. Have you read the promises of the covenant? Up to and including Christ?

k2aggie07 said:

---

I mean...

• God made a prophet out of a body of humans... check, Israel
• Sporadically inspiring various prophets within it... check, unless you think Prophets like David were infallible?
• To make a consensus within the body... check, the oral tradition and Scriptures and Law
• As a whole, continuously infallible... check. Have you read the promises of the covenant? Up to and including Christ?

---

Did David teach error concerning things of faith? He sinned and repented, sure. But that's not the sort of error and infallibility we've been talking about. If forgiven sins defeat infallibility, then Israel was not continuously infallible.

I think you have a definition of infallibility that's different than mine. When the Church puts forward dogma, she doesn't err. The list of dogmatic maxims of the Church is fairly short. Doctrine, or the totality of the teaching of the church for example, what one bishop or other may teach is not. Theologoumena, or theological opinions, is the bulk of Patristic writing. These are theological opinions held by writers which may or may not be true, but given the esteem, holiness, etc of the writer or writers falls into probable or likely truth. St Augustine's writings on free will fell into this category.

Basically with few exceptions theologoumena become pious tradition or doctrine, and when they are tested by schism or heresy they are rigorously defined and become dogma or criteria of the faith. To hold the faith of the Apostles you must believe this; you cannot hold this. Etc.

Seven ecumenical councils and that's it? Sinless & ever-virgin Mary, baptismal/chrismational regeneration, even theosis, those are fallible church teachings? I don't see those things in the seven councils.

Always so minimalistic and legalistic. I would say the teachings of the fathers and church doctrine are potentially fallible, but likely true.

The Faith is a Thing. It exists, it's from Christ. Portions of it have a beginning and an end, the parts taught by humans or that can be learned from a book. Other parts are mystical and are taught by the Holy Spirit and learned through experience.

So in one sense, yes...more or less to meet the minimum standard of having a correct belief about God, the Symbol of Faith is it. It's a symbol in the Greek sense, it is the part which implies the whole.

I would not limit t to the Ecumenical Councils though. The approach of the church has always been conciliar and there have been several important councils that weren't ecumenical. They didn't need to be, because the heresy was local, and the local council was simply asserting the global truth. Similar to a state court versus a Supreme Court, I suppose. These are still real teachings.

Ultimately we don't believe in a monolithic earthly church. The church is One in Christ. Wherever the bishops and the faithful are is the whole church. The real answer to this question should be - what does your priest or bishop say? The Bible tells us to be in submission to our church leaders.

I'm just trying to figure out where I'd find the "fairly short" list of infallible dogmatic maxims that you mentioned.

So the list starts with ecumenical councils but might include various local councils, depending on what your local bishop/priest says (understanding that he is not himself infallible), but there's not a universal list, per se. Is that right?

The Church is infallible in that she cannot err or depart from the faith. The church is true and the true faith is always taught in the church, because the true faith is what causes unity to Christ. Christ is the source of Truth, so the true faith is what causes the church to be true.

If you're talking about a list of things you must believe you're now talking about a limited list of things you have to believe to be baptized into the church, or perhaps to take communion, etc. That list is short, yes, and the ecumenical councils are definitely there. But a renouncing of the Devil is also a good start; we don't see that in the ecumenical councils. Or holy communion, but that is definitely part of the emphatic teaching of the church. See what I mean?

In church today the parish council was instated and the formulate for guidance for them was the Holy Scriptures and the traditions and canons of the Orthodox Church as defined by the ecumenical synods and the regional councils they endorsed.

No, I'm confused now. You said a few posts up, "When the Church puts forward dogma, she doesn't err. The list of dogmatic maxims of the Church is fairly short. Doctrine, or the totality of the teaching of the church for example, what one bishop or other may teach is not."

So I understood you to say that the EOC has, on one hand, a fairly short list of inerrant dogmatic maxims, things upon which the church spoke definitively with all of its infallibility. On the other hand, the EOC has "[d]octrine, or the totality of the teaching of the church for example, what one bishop or other may teach," which is not necessarily infallible but nevertheless worthy of belief and trust.

So I'm asking where I'd find the fairly short list of things that belong to that first category.

That is the tradition of the church as expressed by the Ecumenical councils and regional councils which they endorsed, then.

Yes man has a choice but sin has rendered him powerless to exercise it, yet while still in a powerless state of sin God chooses to regenerate mans ability to choose, with an offer that is irresistible. Why some recieve this grace and others do not, and how it is just, is beyond my human comprehension, man is not God. It is a long debated idea as to man's choice and contribution to salvation. In the end does God have to meet our view of fairness and justice or do we accept His promise that he is just.

Oh look, another one.

Irresistible grace isn't scriptural.

"You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did." Acts 7:51

Because free will is real, not an idea. When we pray, it is impactful. For God it's like reading a book, but if the character in the book doesn't do whatever it is they need, the story won't go. He is the author of the book, and is sovereign, but we truly have free will. God's amazing Providence is to make everything work with and because of our choices, not in spite of them. So our actions and choices are real, and they matter.

This is how I understand it when the Scriptures say we are God's synergoi, fellow-workers.

PaulTony said:

---

Yes man has a choice but sin has rendered him powerless to exercise it, yet while still in a powerless state of sin God chooses to regenerate mans ability to choose, with an offer that is irresistible. Why some recieve this grace and others do not, and how it is just, is beyond my human comprehension, man is not God. It is a long debated idea as to man's choice and contribution to salvation. In the end does God have to meet our view of fairness and justice or do we accept His promise that he is just.

---

Have you received this grace?

Attacking a person's belief in his salvation has nothing to do with Calvinism. Hth