Radical Christians & the Word of God (part 1 of 3): Authority

10,433 Views | 252 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Zobel
Van Til
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:03a, 7/7/18
Retired you said "Because many evil things can be considered "biblical". Slavery and genocide can be considered "biblical". They certainly aren't Christ-like. Dashing children against the rocks can be called "biblical". It certainly isn't Christ-like. "

That's not the Bible's fault. That is sin's fault
Reply Quote
1
Van Til
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:04a, 7/7/18
People who downgrade the Bible disparage the third person of God, the Holy Spirit.

Reply Quote
1
Van Til
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:20a, 7/7/18
The Argument that tradition is more important than the Bible is completely unchristian. That is jewish descending down from oral Torah traditions.

Jesus was virulently against the Jewish traditions that arose over time. Written word at least solidifies the idea and fends off more distortion than traditions.

Saying that there was no Bible or New Testament when Jesus was around is not an argument. That's like saying there was no math before someone created the plus or equal sign. Just because cavemen did not use the plus sign does not make the plus sign "less real". That's ridiculous.
Reply Quote
3
Van Til
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:35a, 7/7/18
Another analogy... the Bible is like a map. It is a representation of what people saw.

Maps (originally) were made by first hand knowldge of the land. For a guy 1000 years later to say... well because the land was there before explorers made their maps makes the map less real... that is completely ridiculous.

Tradition proponents say... well we don't know who actually explored this land but it was passed
Down through a game of telephone.... and because there were no maps at one point ... telephone is better...
Yes... people distort the Bible... but let's not believe the ridiculous idea that a generational game of telephone is better...
Reply Quote
1
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Van Til • 10:41a, 7/7/18
AG
You are creating a false dichotomy. There is no need to "downgrade" the Bible. Being able to understand the Bible as an icon of Christ is not downgrading it. It certainly doesn't disparage the Spirit. What a ridiculous assertion!

No one has said tradition is more important than the Bible. They are both witnesses to the same truth and flow from the same source. Holy Scripture is part of Holy Tradition, and neither can exist without the other. Alone both are incomplete.

We must always make a distinction - as Christ and the Apostles did - between the traditions of men and the traditions of God. Conflating the two is nonsensical. Note well Christ told the people to obey the Pharisees even if they distorted tradition.

You last paragraph about the scriptures make no sense. The faith was delivered once for all to the saints. Completely whole, nothing lacking. This happened before the writing of the NT and certainly before the formalization of the canon.

To use your silly analogy, if you tried to tell me cavemen believed in math, I would know you're wrong. Same as I can tell you the Apostles did not believe or teach sola scriptura.
Reply Quote
4
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:48a, 7/7/18
AG
One could just as easily say that mistrusting the Church and the adherence to Apostolic Tradition disparages the leader of that Church - the Holy Spirit.

You want to suggest that the Spirit deposited and protected the truth in the form of the modern Bible but you have no explanation for process by which the Spirit did this. "It was God's will" or some such.

We don't need to hand wave. We have eyes, we can read. We have brains, we can think. We can see how God accomplished this. Through Holy Tradition, through the Church steadfastly adhering only to the Gospel that was taught publicly by the Apostles. Eschewing all other heresies and all other claims to the truth, the Church, guided and led by the Holy Spirit, preserved the truth in the form of Apostolic Tradition and Holy Scriptures, on testing the other.

We don't guess at "who explored the land" or "who made the first map". We know because we have maintained the tradition. This is not oral, this is written, in libraries worth of patristic manuscripts, writing; in our prayers and liturgies unchanged through the centuries; and of course in our scriptures.
Reply Quote
3
Van Til
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:57a, 7/7/18
I can not understand how this is hidden from you. Jesus quotes from scriptures. He attacked the "traditions of men."

You say you don't downgrade the Bible... but a tradition NOT found in the Bible, no matter angelic, may risk downgrading the Bible.

The Bible is the Map. Written by God. You can say all you want that some guy in Constantinople received an oral tradition with equal weight, but that is ridiculous.

This is why you post quotes from priests. You have forgotten the Bible was written by God. And you say believe the map of a human. Not that all maps by humans are wrong, but they ALL must be held to the BiBLE. That is what sole scriptura is.

The master key the perfect map the prototype was created for us by God. Why would anyone use anything else without checking if it is the same?


Reply Quote
1
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Van Til • 11:04a, 7/7/18
AG
Not all traditions are traditions of men. There are traditions of God.

Tradition precedes the Bible by necessity. Nowhere does the canon of scripture claim to be complete as to the teachings of Christ. In fact, St John tells us the opposite.

The Bible is NOT the map. Christ is the Map. The Bible is an icon of Christ. And it was not written by God, it was written by men. Inspired, yes. Dictated? No.

What did the Apostles check Christ's teaching against?
Reply Quote
4
Van Til
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 11:09a, 7/7/18
k2aggie07 said:
Not all traditions are traditions of men. There are traditions of God.

Tradition precedes the Bible by necessity. Nowhere does the canon of scripture claim to be complete as to the teachings of Christ. In fact, St John tells us the opposite.

The Bible is NOT the map. Christ is the Map. The Bible is an icon of Christ. And it was not written by God, it was written by men. Inspired, yes. Dictated? No.

What did the Apostles check Christ's teaching against?


You say you don't downgrade the Bible. Yet you continually say "tradition precedes the Bible". What does that mean?

And furthermore.. if tradition precedes the Bible and is of Equal importance... why were those "traditions" NOT included in the Bible?

Edit: to include NOT
Reply Quote
1 edit
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Van Til • 11:23a, 7/7/18
AG
Tradition precedes the Bible seems pretty self explanatory to me. It came before it, temporally. Tradition is the teaching of Christ. It is paradoseis, that which is handed down, which St Paul says to hold fast to - written or spoken. In other words, the teachings of Christ are older than the Bible, and the Bible witnesses to these traditions.

Apostolic Tradition gave us the Bible. The test of the reliability of scriptures was their adherence to the public ministry of the apostles. St Paul tells St Timothy this much (2 Tim 2:2). This was the same litmus test St Irenaeus used to dispose of heretical works that claimed apostolic authority.

Where does the Bible say that it is the complete and authoritative encyclopedia of Christian belief and practice? If it says this why have Christians been writing expositions and letters of advice and instruction since the beginning?
Reply Quote
4
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:26a, 7/7/18
AG
There are some things that are debatable in this thread, but the Church and the traditions of that Church predating the writings that would become part of the Canon 3 centuries later is not debatable. That is historic fact.

If the Bible is the only source of authority for believing Christians, we should be able to readily quote a passage from that Bible which establishes that principle. Although, even if such a passage exists, which I submit it does not, it would be self-serving in the extreme and would lend no additional credibility to the idea that the Bible alone is a believing Christian's only source of authority. There has to be an external source of authority that validates the Bible as the inspired word of God. Simply waiving your hands and saying it is so doesn't make it so.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
AgLiving06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:24p, 7/7/18
To be clear, Sola Scriptura does not mean that each person should independently make a decision on what the Bible says. It was very clear that from the beginning we must be looking back to what the Church Fathers wrote. One of the biggest travesties of Christianity is that most Non-Denoms and some Protestant groups have no idea who the Church Fathers are and what they taught.

Sola Scriptura at its very nature is to keep the focus on God by offering a very simple test of whether a tradition has a "command, promise or example" within the Old Testament and New Testament.

It's not a high hurdle and it doesn't mean you can or cannot believe things outside the scripture, but it acknowledges you are going outside of what we know for sure came from the Apostles. The example of 2 Tim 2:2 is a good example of us having no real idea what Paul told Timothy in front of the wider audience. But we know what he wrote.


Reply Quote
1
Van Til
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:28p, 7/7/18
There is a lot of mental gymnastics in here. It's very simple.

Either:
1. The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit and anything from the Spirit will be congruent with the Bible;
Or
2. The Bible was not written by the Holy Spirit and it is a historical document of first hand knowledge.

My poisition is that things of the spirit are congruent. I believe the Bible to be written by the spirit. I believe traditions to be written by man. Some of these man made traditions match to the Bible, and therefore, are of the Spirit. Others are not. Because they are not congruent.

There is no way out of the syllogism. You must accept 1 or 2 OR believe things of the Spirit are incongruent.

My position is 1. All orthodox and Catholics, in MY view, accept 2. But CLAIM they are under view 1.
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Van Til • 12:47p, 7/7/18
AG
Van Til said:
There is a lot of mental gymnastics in here. It's very simple.

Either:
1. The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit and anything from the Spirit will be congruent with the Bible;
Or
2. The Bible was not written by the Holy Spirit and it is a historical document of first hand knowledge.

My poisition is that things of the spirit are congruent. I believe the Bible to be written by the spirit. I believe traditions to be written by man. Some of these man made traditions match to the Bible, and therefore, are of the Spirit. Others are not. Because they are not congruent.

There is no way out of the syllogism. You must accept 1 or 2 OR believe things of the Spirit are incongruent.

My position is 1. All orthodox and Catholics, in MY view, accept 2. But CLAIM they are under view 1.
It seems you can't address any of the points, so you're moving to a new discussion point.

What did the Apostles check Christ's teaching against? What did the early Christians use as their litmus test to guard against heresy? (Hint: Read 2 Thess 3:6).

As for this new line of question, you need to define what you mean by "written by the Holy Spirit". Do you mean dictated word for word? The NT authors make no such claim, though the Prophets certainly did.

You again have presented a false dichotomy, because you would require a person affirm two statements in each of your options. I don't think either one of your statements is correct.

Fixing it for you:
The Bible was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit and anything from the Spirit will be congruent with the Bible, and it is a historical document of first hand knowledge.

The scriptures were written by men who followed Christ, walked with Christ, were called His friends by Him, who received the Holy Spirit and were told to make disciples of the world. They were filled with the Spirit. This does not mean what they wrote was written by the Spirit. We do not lose ourselves in Christ; we find ourselves in Him. We don't become Him, we grow up to the full measure of the stature of Him (cf Eph 4:13). Our unique identity is preserved and perfected. Thus the writings of St Peter are not like those of St Paul. The writing of St Luke is distinct from St John. The writings of St Gregory the Theologian are different than St Basil the great. But that doesn't mean they weren't all inspired by the same spirit of truth, expressing truth from within truth.

If the Holy Spirit wrote the scriptures, how can the scriptures say "I do not have a commandment of the Lord" in 1 Corinthians 7:25? How can they say "I am not speaking as the Lord would, but as a fool" in 2 Corinthians 11:7?

The truth is, the scriptures are what they are: words on a page. They can be misinterpreted, misapplied, misunderstood. By themselves they are of dubious value, because as the scriptures themselves say people need scriptures opened for them. By Christ Himself, as on the road to Emmaus; or by someone who is enlightened by the spirit, as demonstrated by St Philip. The scriptures tell us: We know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. Christ. Not the scriptures.

Holy Scripture is not the bedrock of the Christian faith. It is a sure guide, a reference, a guard, useful for teaching and understanding, rebuking and correcting.

The Bible is not the foundation of the Church of Christ. Instead, St Paul tells us the Lord's household has been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone.

You will never read patristic works and not find scripture. But they read scripture from within the Church, and the Church provides the interpretive framework. A person without the necessary lens - that is, the lens provided by Christ - is as lost as St Paul was, who while knowing the Scriptures completely missed Christ.
Reply Quote
5
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:48p, 7/7/18
AG
The Holy Spirit did not take a pen and write the books of the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the books that make up the Canon and assured that they would not contain error. The one, holy catholic and apostolic Church, again guided by and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, defined which books were fit to be in the Canon of the Bible.

The Gospels, which were all written by divinely inspired human beings AFTER the Church was founded, were written as liturgical documents to be read within and used for the liturgies of the Church then and now.

The same one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that defined heresies and gave us the creed that has ever since been a dogmatic, definitional statement of the bare minimum of what it means to be Christian, is the same Church that defined the Canon of the Bible which Sola Scriptura purports to be the sole source of credible authority for defining what is Christian.

To question the authority of the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church that gave us the creeds, defined heresies, and defined the Canon is to argue that the credibility of the Bible is up for debate as the inspired word of God.
Reply Quote
4
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgLiving06 • 12:50p, 7/7/18
AG
Sola vs Solo are distinctions in theory only. In practice, they become one and the same thing. When you reject the authority of an orthodox interpretation of Scripture, you wind up where we are today.

The reformers quoted the fathers, some more than others - but none of them felt constrained to submit to the "ancient boundary stone set by their fathers" (Proverbs 22:28). They became authorities to themselves, selectively editing the fathers rather than the ancient rule of "everywhere, always, by all".
Reply Quote
1
AgLiving06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 2:21p, 7/7/18
k2aggie07 said:
Sola vs Solo are distinctions in theory only. In practice, they become one and the same thing. When you reject the authority of an orthodox interpretation of Scripture, you wind up where we are today.

The reformers quoted the fathers, some more than others - but none of them felt constrained to submit to the "ancient boundary stone set by their fathers" (Proverbs 22:28). They became authorities to themselves, selectively editing the fathers rather than the ancient rule of "everywhere, always, by all".

As you said earlier, it's all about the prior lenses.

You want for Sola and Solo to be the same so you make them even though they aren't. Certainly there are those who have abused it, but that can be said for nearly every practice.

Sola was all about getting back to Jesus.

The reformers quoted the Church Fathers, most frequently St. Augustine (who may or may not be a Saint at all within orthodox depending on who you ask), which makes complete sense since Luther was an Augustinian Monk. However, the reformers (like you I'm sure) will also acknowledge that no Church Father was infallible.

I always find it interesting to hear that people are selective in reading the fathers. Rome and the Orthodox will both claim different things from the fathers, yet claim they are both "right."

That is why I have really come to appreciate what the reformers did say. If a "command, promise or example" cannot be found in any part of the OT or NT, maybe we should question why we think it's so necessary that nobody mentioned it or thought it important enough to add.
Reply Quote
2
AgLiving06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad • 2:24p, 7/7/18
XUSCR said:
The Holy Spirit did not take a pen and write the books of the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the books that make up the Canon and assured that they would not contain error. The one, holy catholic and apostolic Church, again guided by and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, defined which books were fit to be in the Canon of the Bible.

The Gospels, which were all written by divinely inspired human beings AFTER the Church was founded, were written as liturgical documents to be read within and used for the liturgies of the Church then and now.

The same one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that defined heresies and gave us the creed that has ever since been a dogmatic, definitional statement of the bare minimum of what it means to be Christian, is the same Church that defined the Canon of the Bible which Sola Scriptura purports to be the sole source of credible authority for defining what is Christian.

To question the authority of the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church that gave us the creeds, defined heresies, and defined the Canon is to argue that the credibility of the Bible is up for debate as the inspired word of God.

Which "holy catholic and apostolic Church" are you claiming? Rome or Orthodox? Both make a similar claim, yet offer different "traditions." One of y'all is "right" and "wrong."
Reply Quote
1
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgLiving06 • 2:59p, 7/7/18
AG
Very little - and likely probably nothing - of what the Orthodox church does is not scriptural. The problem is that when you're sola scriptura you're a minimalist by necessity.

If you've drifted from Jesus you're not the Church. Sola scriptura then is unnecessary for the Orthodox Church.

And again where is the scriptural claim of completeness?
Reply Quote
2 edits
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:06p, 7/7/18
AG
Also there is huge difference in merely quoting the fathers and being in submission to them.

The faith was taught complete to the apostles. Christ and the Holy Spirit didn't omit anything. Therefore the Apostolic faith is genuine. Therefore it should be consistent and whole from the beginning.

This is why the criterion is everywhere always by all. Not merely to quote the fathers but to be in submission to the faith they share, espouse, witness to when they speak in unison and consensus.
Reply Quote
AgLiving06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 7:43p, 7/7/18
I don't agree that Sola Scriptura is "minimalism by necessity." As you said, "Very little - and likely probably nothing - of what the Orthodox church does is not scriptural. So if all of orthodox is found within the scriptures, that would also make orthodox minimalists, which I know you will agree with.

However, if you mean a minimalist in the sense, that Sola Scriptura questions all traditions that there are no commands, promises or examples of, than sure we are minimalists. But again, you said nearly all, if not all, of orthodox is available still under this criteria.
Reply Quote
1
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgLiving06 • 7:46p, 7/7/18
AG
AgLiving06 said:
XUSCR said:
The Holy Spirit did not take a pen and write the books of the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the books that make up the Canon and assured that they would not contain error. The one, holy catholic and apostolic Church, again guided by and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, defined which books were fit to be in the Canon of the Bible.

The Gospels, which were all written by divinely inspired human beings AFTER the Church was founded, were written as liturgical documents to be read within and used for the liturgies of the Church then and now.

The same one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that defined heresies and gave us the creed that has ever since been a dogmatic, definitional statement of the bare minimum of what it means to be Christian, is the same Church that defined the Canon of the Bible which Sola Scriptura purports to be the sole source of credible authority for defining what is Christian.

To question the authority of the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church that gave us the creeds, defined heresies, and defined the Canon is to argue that the credibility of the Bible is up for debate as the inspired word of God.

Which "holy catholic and apostolic Church" are you claiming? Rome or Orthodox? Both make a similar claim, yet offer different "traditions." One of y'all is "right" and "wrong."
06, from the point of view of church history prior to the separation of east and west (ca the end of the first millenium) I am talking about the sole "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." The west and those churches in communion with the west consider themselves the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church today, just as our separated brothers and sisters in the east do today. It is a tragedy and we all pray for reunion, but for purposes of this discussion, at the time the Nicene Creed was promulgated, there was only one such Church and it was truly catholic.

What is interesting and I would propose worth considering, is that despite being separated, the west and the east have practically identical views on the role of Sacred Tradtion and Sacred Scripture. That's because those views were formed as part of the real history of the Church, not a revolutionary idea that popped up 1500 years later. If I was Protestant, that would lead me to question the authenticity of my faith.
Reply Quote
1 edit
AgLiving06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad • 8:27p, 7/7/18
XUSCR said:
AgLiving06 said:
XUSCR said:
The Holy Spirit did not take a pen and write the books of the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the books that make up the Canon and assured that they would not contain error. The one, holy catholic and apostolic Church, again guided by and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, defined which books were fit to be in the Canon of the Bible.

The Gospels, which were all written by divinely inspired human beings AFTER the Church was founded, were written as liturgical documents to be read within and used for the liturgies of the Church then and now.

The same one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that defined heresies and gave us the creed that has ever since been a dogmatic, definitional statement of the bare minimum of what it means to be Christian, is the same Church that defined the Canon of the Bible which Sola Scriptura purports to be the sole source of credible authority for defining what is Christian.

To question the authority of the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church that gave us the creeds, defined heresies, and defined the Canon is to argue that the credibility of the Bible is up for debate as the inspired word of God.

Which "holy catholic and apostolic Church" are you claiming? Rome or Orthodox? Both make a similar claim, yet offer different "traditions." One of y'all is "right" and "wrong."
06, from the point of view of church history prior to the separation of east and west (ca the end of the first millenium) I am talking about the sole "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." The west and those churches in communion with the west consider themselves the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church today, just as our separated brothers and sisters in the east do today. It is a tragedy and we all pray for reunion, but for purposes of this discussion, at the time the Nicene Creed was promulgated, there was only one such Church and it was truly catholic.

What is interesting and I would propose worth considering, is that despite being separated, the west and the east have practically identical views on the role of Sacred Tradtion and Sacred Scripture. That's because those views were formed as part of the real history of the Church, not a revolutionary idea that popped up 1500 years later. If I was Protestant, that would lead me to question the authenticity of my faith.

I hear Catholics say something to this effect frequently. Paraphrasing Kallistos Ware, the Orthodox would claim Catholics and Protestants are more closely aligned than the Orthodox and Catholics. Something to think about as well.

But I do agree that we should pray for unity. We are going to need it in this Post-Christian world.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgLiving06 • 8:40p, 7/7/18
AG
AgLiving06 said:
I don't agree that Sola Scriptura is "minimalism by necessity." As you said, "Very little - and likely probably nothing - of what the Orthodox church does is not scriptural. So if all of orthodox is found within the scriptures, that would also make orthodox minimalists, which I know you will agree with.

However, if you mean a minimalist in the sense, that Sola Scriptura questions all traditions that there are no commands, promises or examples of, than sure we are minimalists. But again, you said nearly all, if not all, of orthodox is available still under this criteria.

By definition sola whatever is limiting.

That Orthodoxy is scriptural doesn't mean orthopraxis is completely contained within scripture. For example, we fast, which is scriptural. But our fasting rule is not found within scripture. We use incense, which is scriptural, but not explicitly.

Tradition tests scripture. Tradition is the guard of tradition. Scripture is contained and ratified by tradition. And yes, scripture can prove and show error. But there is no conflict between Apostolic Tradition and Scripture. Sola scriptura puts them at odds with each other.
Reply Quote
1
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgLiving06 • 9:06p, 7/7/18
AG
AgLiving06 said:
XUSCR said:
AgLiving06 said:
XUSCR said:
The Holy Spirit did not take a pen and write the books of the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the books that make up the Canon and assured that they would not contain error. The one, holy catholic and apostolic Church, again guided by and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, defined which books were fit to be in the Canon of the Bible.

The Gospels, which were all written by divinely inspired human beings AFTER the Church was founded, were written as liturgical documents to be read within and used for the liturgies of the Church then and now.

The same one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that defined heresies and gave us the creed that has ever since been a dogmatic, definitional statement of the bare minimum of what it means to be Christian, is the same Church that defined the Canon of the Bible which Sola Scriptura purports to be the sole source of credible authority for defining what is Christian.

To question the authority of the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church that gave us the creeds, defined heresies, and defined the Canon is to argue that the credibility of the Bible is up for debate as the inspired word of God.

Which "holy catholic and apostolic Church" are you claiming? Rome or Orthodox? Both make a similar claim, yet offer different "traditions." One of y'all is "right" and "wrong."
06, from the point of view of church history prior to the separation of east and west (ca the end of the first millenium) I am talking about the sole "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." The west and those churches in communion with the west consider themselves the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church today, just as our separated brothers and sisters in the east do today. It is a tragedy and we all pray for reunion, but for purposes of this discussion, at the time the Nicene Creed was promulgated, there was only one such Church and it was truly catholic.

What is interesting and I would propose worth considering, is that despite being separated, the west and the east have practically identical views on the role of Sacred Tradtion and Sacred Scripture. That's because those views were formed as part of the real history of the Church, not a revolutionary idea that popped up 1500 years later. If I was Protestant, that would lead me to question the authenticity of my faith.

I hear Catholics say something to this effect frequently. Paraphrasing Kallistos Ware, the Orthodox would claim Catholics and Protestants are more closely aligned than the Orthodox and Catholics. Something to think about as well.

But I do agree that we should pray for unity. We are going to need it in this Post-Christian world.
I don't know how anyone can look at the western Catholic Church and its rituals and soteriology and think it more like Protestantism than Orthodoxy unless one just doesn't want to admit the commonality. To do otherwise strikes me as lazy at best and disingenuous at worst.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
AgLiving06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad • 2:17a, 7/8/18
XUSCR said:
AgLiving06 said:
XUSCR said:
AgLiving06 said:
XUSCR said:
The Holy Spirit did not take a pen and write the books of the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the books that make up the Canon and assured that they would not contain error. The one, holy catholic and apostolic Church, again guided by and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, defined which books were fit to be in the Canon of the Bible.

The Gospels, which were all written by divinely inspired human beings AFTER the Church was founded, were written as liturgical documents to be read within and used for the liturgies of the Church then and now.

The same one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that defined heresies and gave us the creed that has ever since been a dogmatic, definitional statement of the bare minimum of what it means to be Christian, is the same Church that defined the Canon of the Bible which Sola Scriptura purports to be the sole source of credible authority for defining what is Christian.

To question the authority of the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church that gave us the creeds, defined heresies, and defined the Canon is to argue that the credibility of the Bible is up for debate as the inspired word of God.

Which "holy catholic and apostolic Church" are you claiming? Rome or Orthodox? Both make a similar claim, yet offer different "traditions." One of y'all is "right" and "wrong."
06, from the point of view of church history prior to the separation of east and west (ca the end of the first millenium) I am talking about the sole "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." The west and those churches in communion with the west consider themselves the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church today, just as our separated brothers and sisters in the east do today. It is a tragedy and we all pray for reunion, but for purposes of this discussion, at the time the Nicene Creed was promulgated, there was only one such Church and it was truly catholic.

What is interesting and I would propose worth considering, is that despite being separated, the west and the east have practically identical views on the role of Sacred Tradtion and Sacred Scripture. That's because those views were formed as part of the real history of the Church, not a revolutionary idea that popped up 1500 years later. If I was Protestant, that would lead me to question the authenticity of my faith.

I hear Catholics say something to this effect frequently. Paraphrasing Kallistos Ware, the Orthodox would claim Catholics and Protestants are more closely aligned than the Orthodox and Catholics. Something to think about as well.

But I do agree that we should pray for unity. We are going to need it in this Post-Christian world.
I don't know how anyone can look at the western Catholic Church and its rituals and soteriology and think it more like Protestantism than Orthodoxy unless one just doesn't want to admit the commonality. To do otherwise strikes me as lazy at best and disingenuous at worst.

The statement I came comes from one of the pre-eminate writers on Orthodox (Metropolitan Kallistos Ware).

But honest question, what about your soteriology do you think fits with Orthodox or even Protestants (and by Protestants, I mean the original reformers, not the non-denims of today).
Reply Quote
tehmackdaddy
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 8:15a, 7/8/18
AG
k2aggie07 said:
Which is part of the issue I have with wargograw / sola scriptura in general. He wants is to start with the bible sitting on his shelf with 66 books in a nice bound cover, and go from there. He more or less implies that we read it, and we have to let it "speak for itself".

Have you ever read any Scripture and learned something, especially how it applies to you, personally, that hasn't been written down by Catholic Church fathers that you can reference it against?
Reply Quote
FTACo88-FDT24dad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgLiving06 • 8:29a, 7/8/18
AG
AgLiving06 said:
XUSCR said:
AgLiving06 said:
XUSCR said:
AgLiving06 said:
XUSCR said:
The Holy Spirit did not take a pen and write the books of the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the books that make up the Canon and assured that they would not contain error. The one, holy catholic and apostolic Church, again guided by and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, defined which books were fit to be in the Canon of the Bible.

The Gospels, which were all written by divinely inspired human beings AFTER the Church was founded, were written as liturgical documents to be read within and used for the liturgies of the Church then and now.

The same one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that defined heresies and gave us the creed that has ever since been a dogmatic, definitional statement of the bare minimum of what it means to be Christian, is the same Church that defined the Canon of the Bible which Sola Scriptura purports to be the sole source of credible authority for defining what is Christian.

To question the authority of the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church that gave us the creeds, defined heresies, and defined the Canon is to argue that the credibility of the Bible is up for debate as the inspired word of God.

Which "holy catholic and apostolic Church" are you claiming? Rome or Orthodox? Both make a similar claim, yet offer different "traditions." One of y'all is "right" and "wrong."
06, from the point of view of church history prior to the separation of east and west (ca the end of the first millenium) I am talking about the sole "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." The west and those churches in communion with the west consider themselves the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church today, just as our separated brothers and sisters in the east do today. It is a tragedy and we all pray for reunion, but for purposes of this discussion, at the time the Nicene Creed was promulgated, there was only one such Church and it was truly catholic.

What is interesting and I would propose worth considering, is that despite being separated, the west and the east have practically identical views on the role of Sacred Tradtion and Sacred Scripture. That's because those views were formed as part of the real history of the Church, not a revolutionary idea that popped up 1500 years later. If I was Protestant, that would lead me to question the authenticity of my faith.

I hear Catholics say something to this effect frequently. Paraphrasing Kallistos Ware, the Orthodox would claim Catholics and Protestants are more closely aligned than the Orthodox and Catholics. Something to think about as well.

But I do agree that we should pray for unity. We are going to need it in this Post-Christian world.
I don't know how anyone can look at the western Catholic Church and its rituals and soteriology and think it more like Protestantism than Orthodoxy unless one just doesn't want to admit the commonality. To do otherwise strikes me as lazy at best and disingenuous at worst.

The statement I came comes from one of the pre-eminate writers on Orthodox (Metropolitan Kallistos Ware).

But honest question, what about your soteriology do you think fits with Orthodox or even Protestants (and by Protestants, I mean the original reformers, not the non-denims of today).


RC soteriology is practically the same as Orthodox soteriology. No sola fide or sola scriptura. Also, no once saved always saved. Christ's victory over sin and death is once and for all, but we are free to reject it at anytime before we die.

The biggest difference between western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox is more in ecclesiology and specifically in the filioque. Otherwise, both churches have sacraments that are believed to be real means of imparting grace to the recipient. Both believe in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, which is the source and summit of Catholicism and the Orthodox hold the Eucharist in similar regard.

None of that applies between the Protestant churches in any fashion.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tehmackdaddy • 8:38a, 7/8/18
AG
That's not what is in question here. Obviously there is nothing prohibiting your scenario, and many fathers in letters or homilies strongly encourage the faithful to read the scriptures.

What I am challenging is the idea that there is no required prescriptive interpretive framework. When everyone says let the scripture speak for itself what they're really saying is let me read it as I like. That means no one can be wrong because no one is in submission to anything.

There are many valid ways to read scripture (literal, allegorical, spiritual, historical, etc) so it isn't as if there is one authorized interpretation for each passage. But there most definitely can be wrong interpretations. When you say "what it means to me" nothing can be challenged.
Reply Quote
4
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad • 8:43a, 7/8/18
AG
Bishop Kallistos comment needs to be taken in context, and in context I agree with him. In many ways the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church are very close; but in other ways, the Roman Church is closer to some Protestants than to Orthodoxy.
Reply Quote
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 8:50a, 7/8/18
AG
k2aggie07 said:
That's not what is in question here. Obviously there is nothing prohibiting your scenario, and many fathers in letters or homilies strongly encourage the faithful to read the scriptures.

What I am challenging is the idea that there is no required prescriptive interpretive framework. When everyone says let the scripture speak for itself what they're really saying is let me read it as I like. That means no one can be wrong because no one is in submission to anything.

There are many valid ways to read scripture (literal, allegorical, spiritual, historical, etc) so it isn't as if there is one authorized interpretation for each passage. But there most definitely can be wrong interpretations. When you say "what it means to me" nothing can be challenged.
Amen. And that is one of my problems with modern day Protestants especially Calvinists. It seems to be my way or the highway. And if it was meant to be like that I often wonder why Jesus used parables.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
tehmackdaddy
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 9:12a, 7/8/18
AG
k2aggie07 said:
When everyone says let the scripture speak for itself what they're really saying is let me read it as I like.

Then you are misunderstanding protestantism.

Quote:
That means no one can be wrong because no one is in submission to anything.

We are in submission to the Holy Word of God! We cannot take one passage and interpret it to mean something that is not congruent with the rest of Scripture.

Your argument reminds me of the old-school Protestants who tried to control behavior. They were afraid of liberty because, to them, it meant a license to do anything. That perversion of liberty could not be further from the truth.

It is an understandable fear, but it is one that ultimately subverts the power of Christ and places obedience to the Church above obedience to Christ.
Reply Quote
1
tehmackdaddy
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 9:14a, 7/8/18
AG
dermdoc said:
Amen. And that is one of my problems with modern day Protestants especially Calvinists. It seems to be my way or the highway. And if it was meant to be like that I often wonder why Jesus used parables.

This thread is literally about the supremacy of tradition...or else. How is that anything other than, "my way or the highway"?
Reply Quote
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tehmackdaddy • 9:31a, 7/8/18
AG
Maybe so. From my reading the Sola Scriptura folks want to use the Bible solely and are against tradition. The tradition folks want to use tradition supplemented by the Bible. I do not think the tradition and Bible folks are disregarding the Bible or putting it on a lower plane.

FWIW, this debate has gone on for centuries and probably will not be resolved until Jesus returns. To me it is kind of sad and evidence of the Christian circular firing squad. We are all on the same side.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
AgLiving06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 9:36a, 7/8/18
k2aggie07 said:
AgLiving06 said:
I don't agree that Sola Scriptura is "minimalism by necessity." As you said, "Very little - and likely probably nothing - of what the Orthodox church does is not scriptural. So if all of orthodox is found within the scriptures, that would also make orthodox minimalists, which I know you will agree with.

However, if you mean a minimalist in the sense, that Sola Scriptura questions all traditions that there are no commands, promises or examples of, than sure we are minimalists. But again, you said nearly all, if not all, of orthodox is available still under this criteria.

By definition sola whatever is limiting.

That Orthodoxy is scriptural doesn't mean orthopraxis is completely contained within scripture. For example, we fast, which is scriptural. But our fasting rule is not found within scripture. We use incense, which is scriptural, but not explicitly.

Tradition tests scripture. Tradition is the guard of tradition. Scripture is contained and ratified by tradition. And yes, scripture can prove and show error. But there is no conflict between Apostolic Tradition and Scripture. Sola scriptura puts them at odds with each other.

The problem is based on how you keep trying to corner "sola" you are also cornering orthodox.

Anything can be deemed to be limiting if you truly want it to be. I could make the claim Orthodox is minimalist/limiting simply because it only considers Tradition. I could say all the choices on the earth are limiting because we aren't considering the universe choices. Point being, anything can be limiting.

However, I go back to your initial statement that Sola doesn't appear to limit anything within Orthodox. It appears you want to make a distinction when none are necessary.

Final Sola does the exact opposite of what you accuse it of. Sola requires and/or necessitates that Tradition and Scriptures be in unison. They have to balance each other out. Scriptures tell us what Jesus (and all writers of the OT/NT) were recorded as having said. Traditions tells us how to view it.

They have to work in that manner.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.