I always find this argument to be one of the weakest arguments against Sola Scriptura.

Sure, there were 10s of years (or less) between Jesus death and the writings of Paul and Luke. And outside of the Scriptures, we know next to nothing.

But you're right, Jesus left us the Church and the Holy Spirit guided writing and compilation of the New Testament, but purposefully left things out so that you and I could argue about it 2000 years later.

I mean, if I get real cynical about it, within 300 years the Church is fighting over the divinity of Jesus, but that was probably because the Disciples and Apostles spent the majority of the time focused on far more important things like figuring out what they weren't going to tell people.

And I agree with every single bit of it.

However, the difference between you and I, is you are going to claim that the "teachings of the Apostles" includes things that were so important that the Holy Spirit let them be excluded from Scriptures...

k2aggie07 said:

---

Ok but where does St Augustine say you find the scriptures? I told you above: in the Church.

Let's put St Augustine's words back to back:

Quote:

---

What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostles? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.

Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of our Shepherd. Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures.

If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema.

---

Quote:

---

Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.

---

It is not hard. The following statements are facts, not opinions.

There was a time when the Church existed and the NT did not.

There was a time when the Church existed, and some of the NT books did, while others did not.

There was a time when the Church existed, the current books of the NT existed, and other spurious books were being put forward as authentic.

There was a time when the Church existed, the NT was being used in the Church but not uniformly world wide (see St Augustine's quote above).

There was a time when the canon existed in practice but not formally or rigorously defined.*

You cannot, absolutely cannot, believe in sola scriptura during those time periods. It is not possible! You are projecting a later idea and shoehorning St Augustine's words into it. It is like suggesting he would have preferred texting to cell phone calls.

*We can go even farther, and say: There will be a time when the Church exists, but the Scriptures will not: "Love never fails; but if there are prophesies, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will be ceased; if there is knowledge it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect should come, the partial will be done away." 1 Cor 13:8-10

---

You (falsely) continue the notion that, without the Catholic Church, God cannot be known.

Without Catholic authority and succession, how can God be known?

You disregard the mistakes of the Catholics and you betray the power of Christ with such nonsense.

Your argument hinges on Christ needing the church. How foolish!

k2aggie07 said:

---

These two sentences are both true:

Scripture is reliable and authoritative.
Tradition is reliable and authoritative.

---

Except when the Catholic Church isn't reliable, which they don't want to talk about or pretend wasn't them.

XUSCR said:

---

In a genuine spirit of fellowship with Ag06, I would just like to echo what K2 is saying, and say again, that the Church pre-dates any aspect of the NT.

---

The Church, as in the bride of Christ that made up of all believers, yes.

The Catholic Church, though it emerged, no.

AgLiving06 said:

---

I always find this argument to be one of the weakest arguments against Sola Scriptura.

Sure, there were 10s of years (or less) between Jesus death and the writings of Paul and Luke. And outside of the Scriptures, we know next to nothing.

But you're right, Jesus left us the Church and the Holy Spirit guided writing and compilation of the New Testament, but purposefully left things out so that you and I could argue about it 2000 years later.

I mean, if I get real cynical about it, within 300 years the Church is fighting over the divinity of Jesus, but that was probably because the Disciples and Apostles spent the majority of the time focused on far more important things like figuring out what they weren't going to tell people.

---

Outside of the scriptures you know less than nothing. We know a lot. Tradition picks up right where scripture leaves off with the writings of St Clement, St Ignatius, St Irenaeus, St Justin Martyr, St Mathetes, and St Polycarp. Clement may pre-date some of the scriptures, and Eusebius' Church History tells us that it was read liturgically in churches for centuries (i.e., was treated as scripture).

There wasn't anything "left out". What do you think was "left out"? Again, what part of Orthodoxy or Apostolic Tradition do you think is at odds with Scripture?

Within 300 years there was a schism, not over the divinity of Jesus per se but in the exact details of His divinity. First of all, this should not surprise you as St Paul told the Corinthians - "For also it behooves there to be heresies among you, so that also the approved should become evident among you." And so it was. Arius was wrong. Novatian was wrong. The various Gnostic sects were wrong.

You know that Arius quoted scripture, right? A lot of it, he based everything on scripture. So did the Eunomians. All heretics (i.e., factions) do.

Quote:

---

However, the difference between you and I, is you are going to claim that the "teachings of the Apostles" includes things that were so important that the Holy Spirit let them be excluded from Scriptures...

---

Again, at this point the burden is on you to show what we consider Apostolic Tradition that is "left out" of the scriptures.

PS Where does the scripture that the Holy Spirit inspire make a claim for completion, or to be an encyclopedia of proper praxis?

PPS What did the Apostle Andrew teach? Or Bartholomew, or Thomas? Simon the Zealot or Philip? They wrote nothing. Did they offer nothing to the world? How did they become fishers of men when they wrote no scripture?

Quote:

---

You (falsely) continue the notion that, without the Catholic Church, God cannot be known.

Without Catholic authority and succession, how can God be known?

You disregard the mistakes of the Catholics and you betray the power of Christ with such nonsense.

Your argument hinges on Christ needing the church. How foolish!

---

First, Catholic does not mean the Church of Rome, as you seem to be drawing an equivalence. Catholic, from Greek katholike means "universal". This word is spoken about a quality, does not mean covering a wide area. It means lacking nothing, nothing missing: full, complete, total. It means whole. Katholon means according to the whole.

So, yes, without the universal (Catholic) Church, the Father cannot be known. This is absolutely true, as Christ Jesus tells us: No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

Properly, there is an identity relationship between Christ and the Church. Christ Jesus tells us "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." St Paul echoes this, telling us our "bodies are members of Christ" and that "we the many are one body" when we are in communion with - whom? The Church? Each other? Christ? Yes to all three, emphatically.

The body, he says, is a unit comprised of parts, and from many parts there is one body. Just like from one vine there are many branches. He is echoing, rephrasing, the words of Christ. In union to Christ, we become joined to Him. Again, in Romans St Paul says "So we, the many, are one body in Christ; and individually members one of another." Members of one another. This is unity - not the false unity of the world, of agreeing on doctrine, of agreeing on politics, of joining together to work or even to worship. But coming together in Christ. How? In the Church, becoming members of one body, partaking of one Cup and one Loaf, and in so doing being joined to Him, and to each other.

Paraphrasing Father Thomas Hopko, The word "Body" has four meanings all at once. It is the Body of Jesus Christ Himself, that's broken for us and bled on the cross; it is the Body of the believers who are offering ourselves to Him to die with Him, to take up our Cross with His; it is the Body of the Church, which is the Body of Christ; and as St Paul showed us (one bread = one body), it is the Bread and the Wine that is offered in communion "on behalf of all and for all" as we say in the Liturgy. That offering is Christ, it is the Church, it is the Offerer: again as the Liturgy says, "For you, O Christ, are the One who offers, the One who is offered, the One who receives the offering, and the very Offering which is distributed to us."

Again, Christ says of those of us who believe through the word of the apostles (Apostolic tradition, which includes scripture unless you would say that Christ is not praying for those whom the Apostles taught directly?)
"that all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us...one, as We are one."

If we are one, in Christ, we are the Church. If we are one, in Christ, we are in the Father, one as Christ and the Father are one.

No one can know the Father apart from Christ. No one who is joined to Christ is not part of the Church: "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ!"

Christ does not "need" the Church any more than He "needs" the scripture. Neither does the Church "need" the scriptures, as the Church existed before they did. Christ did not "need" the Apostles, or the Prophets. Yet who would deny that the Prophets were not part of His Plan? That the Apostles were not His friends and messengers to the world?

The Catholic church is infallible, from the words of our Lord Himself: The Church is His Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. St Paul says it is the pillar and foundation of truth. Not the scriptures. The Church of Christ.

You are mistaking the Church of Rome with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

What a lovely thread.

I can't sleep and spent an hour going through it. I do miss the opportunity to participate in these discussions. Alas, job is killing me.

I am about to spam this dude now with some observations, and will likely not be able to return for a week or so.

XUSCR said:

---

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.

---

If this is true, I misunderstand Orthodox teaching on sanctification. I find orthodox ideals about the nature of God to be central to their teaching of sanctification and the meaning of salvation. I find these teachings to be very different than the Roman teachings about sanctification and the nature of God. I find the Roman teachings of such to be much more in line with most Protestants.

Death = not close to God = sin, with the order being interchangable. That is a profound teaching, and an important base that is very unwestern.

Maybe I missed the boat here though.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Protestants have something like:

Christ -> ??? -> The Bible

---

You forgot about the step that relates to stealing underpants.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Thanks. I cheat because I'm talking to old me.

---

This might be the sweetest, most encouraging thing I have read in months.

Loves.

k2aggie07 said:

---

The Catholic church is infallible, from the words of our Lord Himself: The Church is His Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. St Paul says it is the pillar and foundation of truth. Not the scriptures. The Church of Christ.

You are mistaking the Church of Rome with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

---

I just can't get there.

The entire Bible is full of stories of God's chosen full of fallibility.

Moses had pride that kept him from the promised land.

David had pride in his piousness that lead him to exasperate his shortcomings.

The Jewish nation wavered back and forth from God like Brownian motion.

Peter was rash.

Paul had a thorn in his side.

I can't accept the edicts of the Church as infallible.

The tradition of the Church is beautiful, and I will not argue with someone claiming it is the best / most authentic Christianity.

But the infallibility of the institution is too difficult for me to overcome.

That's not actually true. I know everything you know outside of scripture (well not in a literal sense because you know vastly more about the Fathers than I do). That was the revelation that I had last year when I was really struggling on whether to truly commit to being Lutheran or to truly commit to being Orthodox. I can remember lighting a candle at St. George and praying that God would show my wife and I the right way to follow Him. That was also the last time I stepped into an Orthodox Church.

The revelation I ended up having was that the Orthodox/Catholics/Coptics/Universal Church (whoever that is) don't own the Church Fathers. They are there for all to learn, study and grow from. Each of you will claim to have the "right" understanding of the Fathers, but we spent the last couple pages arguing over that. I can actually thank Fr. Damick for his podcasts, "The Areopagus," for helping me realize that as long as we are searching the Fathers, we are on the right track.

However, one of the most fascinating things about Orthodox was all the "outside the Bible" claims that I heard.

I believe the thought is that Ignatius was the boy who sat on Jesus lap? Or when I last visited St. George, they claimed to have part of the cross. Fr. Damick shared pictures of his time on Mt. Athos and what he showed in pictures was inspiring and I can't wait to hear the podcast about it....

All of that is truly awe-inspiring, but it also doesn't mean I need to submit to a Bishop to see and appreciate.

I think there is some kind of difference between old and new here. Before the Spirit, St Peter was rash. Afterwards, he was bold. He never fell away again, even to death. And yes, St Paul had a thorn...that remained to teach him. But St Paul persevered.

Even so, no individual enjoys the claim of infallibility even with association of the Church. No one speaks for the Church. So examples of personal imperfection don't mar the perfection of the Church. The Church isn't perfect by it's own quality, it's perfect as it is joined to Christ. If it stops being part of Him it is no longer anything - a branch thrown into the fire.

But the Church is all we've got. St Paul was not wrong, it is the pillar and foundation of truth. It is only by the Church - starting with the word of the Apostles (We believe through their word, according to Christ Jesus in John 17:20) that we believe, whether that word is written or spoken.

If the Church is not infallible, the scriptures are not reliable. Perhaps the gospel of Marcion or Valentinus is the true gospel? Maybe we should be reading something else entirely?

You're the one that said outside of the scripture we know next to nothing. I knew nothing outside the scripture of Church history, or councils, or patristics when I was baptist. But we Orthodox know a ton, because all of it is important. As important as the scriptures? No, but that doesn't mean we have to be binary. There are libraries, volumes, of documents that stand as both theological and historical guideposts about the Faith. We have been given a wealth of knowledge, and not using it is nonsensical.

If the Church doesn't own the fathers, does the Church own the Scriptures? Does anyone have any authority to say - this isn't true, or that isn't true? Can anyone say - this is the gospel that St Paul preached, and an anathema on anyone who preaches any other?

Reality simply is, truth simply is. Voltaire's saying "a long dispute means both parties are wrong" is hopelessly wrong headed. Neither the dispute or what each person is saying changes the truth, and if one person speaks the truth the length of the dispute or the words of the disputer are irrelevant.

If we take them as a whole there is very little interpreting required in the writings of the fathers. If you read St Maximos' Ambigua, you have two large books to get to know only him. If you read St John, you have volumes to know him. Same with St Augustine, or with St Gregory. We have a far clearer picture of St John's or St Augustine's beliefs and practice than we do of St Paul. We know nothing directly of St Andrew or St Simon the Zealot's method of teaching the gospel, we know nothing of how they instructed the people they baptized to live. But we have an entire catechism of St Cyril of Jerusalem! So, taken as a whole, I can say with extreme confidence, for example, that neither St John and St Augustine believed in sola scriptura. There's no guesswork required, I mean...you just read them. There's so many words to cross check, and there's no mystical level - they're just writing letters or giving homilies intended to be understood by (in most cases) their laity.

But even so I sincerely doubt that Martin Luther was reading St John, or St Augustine, and said "Aha! You know what? These dudes believed in sola scriptura, and so I have to as well!" Calvin did not read the fathers and say "wow, they all believe in limited atonement and no free will, I need to reform my thinking." Calvin in particular expressly went to the fathers looking to support his views, couldn't find it, blamed them for for speaking confusedly on the subject.

Just reading the fathers doesn't put you on the right track, any more than reading a map but feeling free to ignore portions of it will help you navigate. If the map says turn left, you turn left. Or you throw the map away, because you're not using it.

//////////////

If those are what you took away from Orthodoxy, it makes me very sad. Orthodoxy is not relics or Mt Athos. It's not churches with icons, or pious traditions about saints. The universal church is found in one place - where the bishop is, with the people. Where we receive of Christ to become Christ. Your mention of St Ignatius is perfect, because this is what he taught:

Quote:

---

Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

---

It isn't about beards or robes or icons. It is about the truly Catholic Church, whole and lacking nothing, because of its association with Christ.

Way back when I was still a seeker, not even yet a catechumen, a bishop told me:

Quote:

---

All religion, including Orthodoxy as an external institution, has inherent dangers. This is why we distinguish Orthodoxy as a "way," from the modern superficial concept of religion. This is what Orthodoxy is: correct belief, correct practice, which together confirm the natural, true existence of the human.

Theology is about what is lived, not what is proclaimed. Theology and scripture describe the glory of God. They do not contain it. That glory is bestowed on us through living a transformative theology.

We can recognize, once we see what a "sick" religion is, that we must seek "healthy" religion. That is our rational decision. But that decision is a prelude to experiencing God in mystery and in what is trans-rational. And there is the rub. Few people, even Orthodox, care to do that. Hence, popular religion and its superficiality and dangers.

You might then ask, "Why have Orthodox Churches?" The answer is simply because the Mysteries that the Church contains and dispenses serve to introduce one to all of the higher aspects of religion.

Like any other confession, Orthodoxy (or much of what exists in the name of Orthodoxy) can be followed and practiced in an empty, non-effective way and can convey much of the sickness of religion. In the end, the barometer of ecclesiastical truth is the Christian life, and the life of deification that the Church can produce.

And how do we purify ourselves? By the continual observance of Orthodoxy and its spiritual regimen: living in but not of the world, submitting our wills to God's, fasting, praying, accepting all as coming from God (including health and sickness, good and bad), and seeking to be among the blessed who are described on the Beatitudes (the Sermon on the Mount). We must also trust God and not ourselves and sacrifice for our Faith as the one most precious thing in our lives. Anything less leaves one sick with religion.

We do not, of course, do this only by our own efforts, but in synergy with God, Whom we discover within us, and within the Church, which, when it is doing as it should and adheres to Holy Tradition, administers the deifying Mysteries of the Church, which illumine us (beginning with Baptism).


God also acts through Grace everywhere. Just as one is not, by becoming Orthodox, automatically cured of imperfection and impurity, so we are not in a position, as mere humans, to deny God's Providence. All that we can say is that we know where purification is - in Christ and in Orthodoxy - and that it is our duty to maintain that truth undefiled (hence our clear opposition to ecumenism) and to call others to the experience of Orthodoxy in its genuine form.

---

If we approach the Church merely looking to replace one religion with another, that's all we'll get. But that isn't really what Orthodoxy promises.

And that's why the understanding of the Church as the Truth criterion is so important. It's not one way among many, it is The Way (this was actually a very common name for Christianity in the Early Church). One can participate in Christ alone in the desert, if one follows The Way. But most of us are not so strong to live this life, so we go to the Church to learn The Way.

k2aggie07 said:

---

If the Church is not infallible, the scriptures are not reliable. Perhaps the gospel of Marcion or Valentinus is the true gospel? Maybe we should be reading something else entirely?

---

This strikes me as a false dichotomy. We can have faith in the reliability of the scriptures without believing the Church as an institution is infallible.

How? How do we know that when they threw out the gospel of Thomas they were right? I mean, don't walk into this knowing there's ~2000 years of using the same scriptures. Start from a blank slate. Why do we trust that book?

Quote:

---

We can have faith in the reliability of the scriptures without believing the Church as an institution is infallible.

---

The Church is the body of Christ. How could the body of Christ be anything but infallible? How can one believe the Scriptures to be infallible, while believing the body of Christ isn't?

Perhaps I just don't understand "infallibility" properly though.

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

We can have faith in the reliability of the scriptures without believing the Church as an institution is infallible.

---

The Church is the body of Christ. How could the body of Christ be anything but infallible? How can one believe the Scriptures to be infallible, while believing the body of Christ isn't?

Perhaps I just don't understand "infallibility" properly though.

---

Yeah, maybe we are getting wrapped up in semantics, but maybe not.

The Church is made up of people. People are fallible. Putting them together under submission to Christ doesn't fix that.

I believe that the structure is perfect. Jesus is the head, we are the body, the bride, the brothers and sisters and sons and daughters.

k2aggie07 said:

---

How? How do we know that when they threw out the gospel of Thomas they were right? I mean, don't walk into this knowing there's ~2000 years of using the same scriptures. Start from a blank slate. Why do we trust that book?

---

I can believe that the Church got it right to exclude the Gospel of Thomas and still not believe that every edict from the Church is perfect.

Even if they got a few of these things wrong, I can still have confidence in the reliability of the scriptures.

I do think that the ancient fathers are an incredibly important source of authenticity here. They were closest to the time, so, we should assume they were right unless we have a great argument against. I just can't get to infallibility of church leadership.

What do you think about Jude? How about the Book of Enoch? I and II Maccabees?

I would be perfectly OK with a Christian telling me that they have more confidence in the authenticity / inspiration of Romans than Jude.

Quote:

---

ou do not have to pick between Scripture and Apostolic tradition.

---

The same is true of Sola Scriptura when properly used. I just switched the order for emphasis on primacy.

How can scripture be prime over apostolic tradition when it came after?

Sola literally means alone. The dichotomy is fundamental to the concept.

Yes, that's certainly true. But then again, you can believe whatever you like. What standard are you using to judge at that point?

What is the difference between saying "The Church got the canon right, but the Trinitarian formula wrong" and "The Church has Romans right but the gospel of Thomas wrong"?

Of course to both I would have the same question: why? what standard are you using to judge?

It isn't the leadership that we say is infallible. It always resides in the church collectively. The formula is "As the prophets have seen, as the apostles have taught, as the Church has received, as the teachers have set forth in dogmas." It's one big unbroken chain. Any break breaks the whole thing. What could the teachers have dogmatized other than what the Church received? The dogma would violate tradition. What could the Church have received except what the Apostles taught? The Church would have failed. What did apostles teach except what the prophets foretold?

///

I'm "fine" with someone placing various ranks in scripture, and certainly in Orthodoxy we do so. We place the gospel on the altar, because our altar is the fulfillment of the altar in the Temple. Instead of Aaron's staff, we have a cross. Instead of the manna, we have the gifts. Instead of the tablets of the ten commandments, we have the gospels. Not the Prophets, not the Law, not the Epistles. The Gospel, because Christ, not the scriptures, is the Word of God, and the Gospels witness to Him, they are an icon of Him. He is our Law.

The scriptures receive their place not because of being canonized by the Church by decree, but by being in harmony with the canon of faith, the canon of truth that the prophets saw, the apostles taught, and the church received. This is the canon (literally the standard) by which everything is judged. The books the Church preserved were canonized because they - like the OT scriptures - are all about Christ, His Passion, His Cross; they are affirmed by the OT and affirm that Christ and His Death are the revelation of God's Glory and Love.

To the extent that any scripture -- even any verse! -- participates in this, we can give it a rank. Rank the red letters higher. Rank "Jesus wept" over "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee".

Because we have faith that God is guiding his Church.

There is a very important distinction between Sola and Solo Scriptura. Solo negates anything besides Scripture whereas Sola teaches that all of the tradition and faith and teachings of the faithful are good and beneficial when viewed through the lenses of Scripture.

We do not throw out tradition, but allow it to deepen our understanding and faith. The same way we read and teach the Book of Concord quia.. because it is proven correct by the Scripture and supported by the tradition of the faith.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

There is a very important distinction between Sola and Solo Scriptura. Solo negates anything besides Scripture whereas Sola teaches that all of the tradition and faith and teachings of the faithful are good and beneficial when viewed through the lenses of Scripture.

We do not throw out tradition, but allow it to deepen our understanding and faith. The same way we read and teach the Book of Concord quia.. because it is proven correct by the Scripture and supported by the tradition of the faith.

---

That's a modern anachronism. Solo scriptura is meaningless in Latin. "Sola scriptura" means scripture alone or if sola is the ablative it means "by scripture alone."

Modern spin contrasting it to solo is just that. There is no way to say what you're saying "solo" scriptura means in Latin.

It means by scripture alone. We could say, that scripture is THE norm, which doesn't exclude other norms. But I think this is perhaps more scandalous.

So sometimes we have faith and sometimes we don't? The Church is sometimes reliable and sometimes not. How do you know which?

Now you're just being difficult to be difficult. You know what the Reformers meant and how Scripture was utilized.

If it was Solo why would The Augsburg Confessions go to such lengths to quote the Fathers?

The key difference is man is fallible and sinful and we like to fill the gaps with our own wants.

Question. How much of Orthodox belief is found outside of the 7 Councils?

Im not being difficult. Solo scriptura doesn't mean anything. It's not grammatically correct. There is no solo vs sola in Latin, this is not a distinction Luther drew in his writing. Modern people are parsing what "alone" means - how alone is alone? And they've backward labeled an extreme version "solo" but the less extreme "sola". There is no corresponding Latin.

Man is fallible? Ok. That is an argument against any definitions whatsoever.

Define belief? You talking about canons? Dogma?

Quote:

---

But even so I sincerely doubt that Martin Luther was reading St John, or St Augustine, and said "Aha! You know what? These dudes believed in sola scriptura, and so I have to as well!" Calvin did not read the fathers and say "wow, they all believe in limited atonement and no free will, I need to reform my thinking." Calvin in particular expressly went to the fathers looking to support his views, couldn't find it, blamed them for for speaking confusedly on the subject.

---

I mean, this is quite literally what happened in Luther's case since he was an Augustinian Monk who by all accounts was well educated (received Doctorate) and a big time reader. At Wittenburg, he was go to person for the OT. So it shouldn't be surprising that he in fact did read it.

It was also his Superior Johann Staupitz who encouraged Luther in ~1507 to focus on the Merits of Christ instead of his sin (Luther was legendary for his penance which ultimately lead to his death later in life).

From that point, it was ~ 10-11 years (1516-1517) to the 95 Theses and more importantly the Heidelberg Disputation (again debated within the Augustinian Monks).

It was then another 4 years (1521) that he spent studying before he was finally excommunicated and was quite literally handed a death sentence (i.e. he could be killed without consequence).

And the finally the Augsburg Confession didn't come out until 1530 (he didn't write it, but heavily influenced those who did).

However, there were several events that further established this for Luther:

1. Luther found that within the "church," Priest rarely knew latin and had never actually read the Bible.
2. The "church" liked to teach that Jesus was a hateful individual and that Mary and the Saints were the kindhearted people who's cloaks you could hide under.
3. Finally, the "church" also used forged documents (Donation of Constantine most famously) to make claims about what the Fathers said.

It's these items that drove Luther to "go to the sources" to figure out what the Father's actually taught, not what the "church" claimed were taught.

So did Luther read the Bible and St. Augustine (and others) and come to realize this was something the Father's believed? Absolutely he did.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Im not being difficult. Solo scriptura doesn't mean anything. It's not grammatically correct. There is no solo vs sola in Latin, this is not a distinction Luther drew in his writing. Modern people are parsing what "alone" means - how alone is alone? And they've backward labeled an extreme version "solo" but the less extreme "sola". There is no corresponding Latin.

---

Sure you are.

The Augsburg Confession goes to lengths to quote the Father's as evidence to why they believed what they believe.

Did they just do that to pretend? Did they really want us to not read those parts?

Swimmerbabes Pastor has a book out that is a daily devotional dedicated to quoting the Father's. He's high ranking within the LCMS. It seems really odd that he would do that (with the support of the LCMS) if we really just mean to read the Bible without context.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Man is fallible? Ok. That is an argument against any definitions whatsoever.

Define belief? You talking about canons? Dogma?

---

Let's pick an easy one. Theosis?