Zobel said:

---

You are again suggesting that in order to reject the novelty of sola scripture I have to accept the novelty of papal supremacy. This does not follow. Rome can be right on one and wrong on the other, just like the reformers are wrong on the first and right on the second.

I really don't understand your last paragraph. "Everywhere always by all" is shorthand to define small-o orthodox Christian beliefs. Sola scriptura does not meet this criteria, therefore it is novel. Not everywhere, not always, not by all.

---

Ah, but now you have a problem.

You've claimed Rome calling something novelty was relevant, while you also want to claim Rome was teaching novelty.

So the logical question would be if Rome was seemingly unaware they were teaching novelty, why would we expect them to be a reliable source to identify novelty? We can't. So we can't use Rome as a source. So now the western church needs a new source and guess what, that's exactly what we saw from the Reformers. They went back to the fathers to make their arguments. Since Rome couldn't be trusted to identify novelty, we should only view their claims of novelty with skepticism.

Quote:

---

I really don't understand your last paragraph. "Everywhere always by all" is shorthand to define small-o orthodox Christian beliefs. Sola scriptura does not meet this criteria, therefore it is novel. Not everywhere, not always, not by all.

---

It's a definition you've tried to push through as acceptable and it's not a definition I'm willing to accept. Doctrinal development should be expected. New challenges and new issues do come up and stunting the discussion with your "everywhere always by all" only leaves you out of the discussion.

But further, under that logic, basically nothing is relevant because most everything has been challenged at one point or another, hence the need for development.

Zobel said:

---

You can't have it both ways. Either the solas and sola scriptura in particular are an authentic apostolic approach or they aren't. Nobody in the world was teaching those things, sola scriptura in particular, at the time immediately prior to the reformation.

If these teachings are the bedrock of the faith, "on which the whole church stands or falls," and they weren't being taught, then the whole world had fallen into a form of apostasy. If this wasn't taught, then there was no Church by the Augsburg confession - no gospel purely taught.

---

I think we have sufficient quotation from the Fathers to know that Sola Scriptura was not novelty. Many times the fathers made the point that we should return to the scriptures to judge a tradition. That's true for both the east and the west.

Your second paragraph makes no sense. In Luther's view, the doctrine on which the whole church stands or falls is justification, not the solas.

This is what is called a category mistake. Here you are saying, because Rome teaches something that is not correct, no teaching of Rome can be correct. Or put another way, because Rome is not perfectly reliable, no judgment of Rome can be reliable. It would be the same mistake if I were say that because the Reformers taught the solas, they're incapable of recognizing Mormonism as inauthentic apostolic teaching.

Aside from being a logical fallacy, it's also an incorrect understanding of my premise - namely to say I am not calling upon Rome as a formal authority to recognize a new teaching. It is not Rome's pronouncement that carries weight - it is simply whether this was taught in Rome or not. I am looking to the historical witness of Rome's teaching as evidence, not their formal statements. The statements are not necessary, in that sense. A teaching that is normative and historical to the apostles must by definition be found in history, and it must be taught publicly. This is and has always been how authentic teaching has been judged in the Church (1 Tim 1:13, 2 Tim 2:2, witnessed by St Irenaeus in Adv. Her. III.4, III.24, St Vincent as earlier noted, and so on).

The fact that sola scriptura, that the scriptures are the sole authority, etc., simply has no historical basis for being a normative, public teaching of the Church. Not in the West, using "Rome" as shorthand, and not in the East.

Quote:

---

It's a definition you've tried to push through as acceptable and it's not a definition I'm willing to accept. Doctrinal development should be expected. New challenges and new issues do come up and stunting the discussion with your "everywhere always by all" only leaves you out of the discussion.

But further, under that logic, basically nothing is relevant because most everything has been challenged at one point or another, hence the need for development.

---

it's not my definition, it is a definition of St Vincent of Lerins, but even then it isn't his definition as he is clearly repeating what he has been taught as how the Church understands it. This is a person recognized East and West as a saint, in a text that is reliable and preserved and oft quoted, and a common approach to explaining. In other words, reject it as you like, but it's very orthodox.

Further, you misunderstand it, because it doesn't preclude doctrinal development. The point is that doctrinal development is only explanation and expansion on existing teachings. Never new. The same saint who explained "everywhere, always, by all" exalts it the necessity of doctrinal development:

Quote:

---

In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress [as things in nature], so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits...

Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the Fathers in this husbandry of God's Church, the same ought to be cultivated and taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection. For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties.

---

The fact that heresy exists, that teachings have been challenged, does not violate the standard. I mean, clearly St Vincent understands that teachings have been challenged by heresy because he's explaining how to identify heresy from orthodoxy. He gives two ways: "first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the catholic Church."

"Everywhere, always, by all" isn't to say that if one person dissents nothing can be affirmed. This is silly. He expands on it to say we follow the rule if we observe what the Church throughout the world confesses, what has been publicly and generally known to be held by the fathers, and if we adhere to the consensus of the Church on definitions and determinations.

So just here for example we see that sola scriptura is at odds with St Vincent. He does not recognize whatever that scripture is a sole authority, but is bound to and properly framed by the interpretation that comes to us by Tradition. If this teaching - which is in line with the exhortations to preserve public teaching in the scripture - was preserved and echoed for a thousand years before the Reformation, how can we say that a teaching which absolutely and clearly negates it was always taught?

Quote:

---

I think we have sufficient quotation from the Fathers to know that Sola Scriptura was not novelty. Many times the fathers made the point that we should return to the scriptures to judge a tradition. That's true for both the east and the west.

---

The bold section is a misstatement of the matter at hand. It carries several incorrect presumptions.

1) That the scriptures and apostolic tradition can be at odds. Since both proceed from and are guided by the Holy Spirit directly, as two witnesses to the Truth of Christ Himself, neither can be false. One can't judge another. The idea itself is as silly as saying the Spirit can judge itself, can tell itself wrong.

2) It badly mischaracterizes what holy tradition is. Namely, it is not a custom or normal behavior. It is the expression of the truth of the teaching of the Christ preserved in the doctrine and praxis of the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

And of course, whatever quotations you can bring to bear are of course answered by the East and, in this case, by Rome. It's why it was so resoundingly and unanimously rejected by literally the entirety of Christendom. Only one party can be right in this matter; either the fathers taught it and somehow this truth was lost to the entire Church (what could we call this but adulteration and apostasy? to misplace the sole and ultimate authority and replace it with another teaching??) or the Reformers are simply not correct.

Quote:

---

Your second paragraph makes no sense. In Luther's view, the doctrine on which the whole church stands or falls is justification, not the solas.

---

You misunderstand it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Clearly I am aware of Luther's quote. This is why I said "those things" and sola scriptura in particular. The Reformers clearly thought that their doctrines rose above petty squabbles about interpretations or theologoumenna. Luther was clear - his doctrine of justification is what he thinks the dividing line between the Church standing or falling is. Therefore his litmus test of truth, and the following and similar confessional identification of the church with gospel purely taught create a way to discern the church: those who do not teach the gospel purely, which clearly means in line with our doctrine and definitions, are not the church.

So again I say. The Reformer's teachings are ultimately authorized and legitimized only in sola scriptura. It's this reason it is defended so vehemently; if we remove it, there is no authority for these interpretations without being coupled with Holy Tradition as witnessed by the Church.

This is part of the reason their appeal to the fathers is so paradoxical. If the doctrines are self-evident, plain logic, consistent, and so forth - what need do they have to appeal to the fathers? It's an appeal to tradition which then turns around and renders tradition subordinate.

Here's the simplest view of it: it doesn't make any historical sense. The apostles can't have taught the Church that the scripture was the sole or ultimate authority before the scriptures were written. So, at best, we could apply such an idea taught by the apostles only extends to the Old Testament. But of course the Old Testament contains no such teaching and the Protestants and reformers clearly appeal to the NT. But that same NT wasn't fully recognized for centuries after, and it itself contains no canon; early canonical lists differ. So how could the Apostles have possibly understood the sole authority of the church in this way? It is a matter of absolute historical fact that this is not an apostolic teaching as Protestants understand and apply it today.

Anyway this topic has been beyond beaten to death. You need to read Augsburg and Constantinople. It's pretty interesting as a historical document.

Quote:

---

This is what is called a category mistake. Here you are saying, because Rome teaches something that is not correct, no teaching of Rome can be correct. Or put another way, because Rome is not perfectly reliable, no judgment of Rome can be reliable. It would be the same mistake if I were say that because the Reformers taught the solas, they're incapable of recognizing Mormonism as inauthentic apostolic teaching.

---

No, this is not what I said at all. You always accuse me of not answering your questions or answering questions you didn't ask. It's your turn to keep doing that.

The above example is not relevant to the discussion. You're trying to dig yourself out of the hole you made and so you're trying to shift the goalposts so you can just sneak out.

You've claimed the following as true:

1. Rome taught novelty.
2. Rome could identify novelty.
3. Rome has the authentic apostolic teachings.

If Rome taught or understood the authentic apostolic teachings, then they aren't teaching novelty.
If Rome is teaching novelty, they aren't teaching the authentic apostolic teachings.

This is the biggest problem in these discussions. You need Rome to have been historically correct so you can wield Rome against the Reformers. But you also need Rome to be historically incorrect in order to justify why the Orthodox are the only "correct" historical christianity.

You've now pivoted to try and take the more correct line (that the reformers also took). That's fine, but it's not at all what you started out this discussion with.

I think the below are a fair view of Rome

1. Rome claimed it was the authentic apostolic church.
2. Rome taught novelty, by their own admission, as well as the reformers.
3. Rome accused the Reformers of teaching novelty.

None of that supposes that Rome did not also have correct teachings. The Augsburg Confession does not claim that Rome had it entirely wrong. There would be no sense in reforming something that was completely broken.

So the question is what becomes the source(s) to reform the church correctly.

The Reformers turned to the Scriptures and the Fathers.
Rome turned inward to their own authority.

Quote:

---

The fact that sola scriptura, that the scriptures are the sole authority, etc., simply has no historical basis for being a normative, public teaching of the Church

---

And this is where we will begin to diverge. Sola Scriptura was not novelty. There is sufficient quotation from the Fathers that the foundations of Sola Scriptura existed within the early Church. Was it as well defined as the reformers came to see it? No, but there's no reason for it to have been. There wasn't the crisis like we saw with Rome that necessitated the further expansion of the concept. But when the time came, the reformers had firm footing in the fathers to make the claims they did.

Zobel said:

---

Here's the simplest view of it: it doesn't make any historical sense. The apostles can't have taught the Church that the scripture was the sole or ultimate authority before the scriptures were written. So, at best, we could apply such an idea taught by the apostles only extends to the Old Testament. But of course the Old Testament contains no such teaching and the Protestants and reformers clearly appeal to the NT. But that same NT wasn't fully recognized for centuries after, and it itself contains no canon; early canonical lists differ. So how could the Apostles have possibly understood the sole authority of the church in this way? It is a matter of absolute historical fact that this is not an apostolic teaching as Protestants understand and apply it today.

Anyway this topic has been beyond beaten to death. You need to read Augsburg and Constantinople. It's pretty interesting as a historical document.

---

This is not true and not even Rome made this argument. Chemnitz points this out in his Examination of Trent. Rome conceded that the OT did in fact teach it, but that things changed with the NT.

Just a few quotations:

Deuteronomy 17: 18-19
"18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests. 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees"

Deuteronomy 31: 10-13
"10 Then Moses commanded them: "At the end of every seven years, in the year for canceling debts, during the Festival of Tabernacles, 11 when all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this law before them in their hearing. 12 Assemble the peoplemen, women and children, and the foreigners residing in your townsso they can listen and learn to fear the Lord your God and follow carefully all the words of this law. 13 Their children, who do not know this law, must hear it and learn to fear the Lord your God as long as you live in the land you are crossing the Jordan to possess.""

1 Samuel 10:25
"25 Samuel explained to the people the rights and duties of kingship. He wrote them down on a scroll and deposited it before the Lord. Then Samuel dismissed the people to go to their own homes."

Isaiah 30:8
"Go now, write it on a tablet for them,
inscribe it on a scroll,
that for the days to come
it may be an everlasting witness."

2 Chronicles 17:7-9
"7 In the third year of his reign he sent his officials Ben-Hail, Obadiah, Zechariah, Nethanel and Micaiah to teach in the towns of Judah. 8 With them were certain LevitesShemaiah, Nethaniah, Zebadiah, Asahel, Shemiramoth, Jehonathan, Adonijah, Tobijah and Tob-Adonijahand the priests Elishama and Jehoram.9 They taught throughout Judah, taking with them the Book of the Law of the Lord; they went around to all the towns of Judah and taught the people.

-------------------------
So no Rome did not try to argue what you are. They conceded that. Their argument centered more Rome being the church due to Peter being the rock and that gave them authority not seen in the OT.

See, this is the problem - its about Reformers and Rome. This argument between Rome and the Reformers has to do with the magisterium and a different approach to the use and identification of scripture from the East.

That discussion and those quotes do not address whatsoever the idea that scripture can be at odds with or correct apostolic tradition. If anything they exemplify the same approach used in the East - the Holy Spirit working through the Church to guide, and teach, and dogmatize using scripture.

You'll note what Samuel wrote down isn't in scripture. Was it authoritative? The Prophet Samuel gave Saul a command in 1 Sam 10:8. In 1 Sam 13:13-14 the Prophet Samual tells Saul that the Lord has rejected him because he did not keep the command that the Lord God gave him. This repeats in chapter 15. Is the written command the sole authority? Or do Samuel's words have the authority of God?

How about Jeremiah's unwritten teachings being the Word of God (Jer 25:3,7-8)? What about Ezra, who was divinely inspired to study the law, practice, and teach it (Ezra 7:9-10)? You note the Levites serve the role as teachers - we see the same in Nehemiah 8:8 and 8:12, where the word is combined with an explanation from the Levites "so the people could understand what was being read."

None of those quotes support the idea that only what is written carries authority from God, and they seem to reinforce the idea that there is a need to bind scripture with right interpretation.

And with that I bid you good day sir! BTHO Vandy!

Quote:

---

See, this is the problem - its about Reformers and Rome. This argument between Rome and the Reformers has to do with the magisterium and a different approach to the use and identification of scripture from the East.

---

But of course the reformation was between Rome and the Reformers. Why is that surprising? However, that's not really relevant to this discussion. This discussion is about your claim that Rome has authority and ability to identify novelty, while also simultaneously teaching novelty. You can try and skip by it, but both statements can't logically be true. Either Rome was teaching novelty and we need to find a source outside of Rome, or they were not teaching novelty and you agree with Papal Supremacy.

Quote:

---

That discussion and those quotes do not address whatsoever the idea that scripture can be at odds with or correct apostolic tradition. If anything they exemplify the same approach used in the East - the Holy Spirit working through the Church to guide, and teach, and dogmatize using scripture.

---

Who would argue that scripture can be at odds with apostolic tradition. Sola Scriptura would be adamantly opposed to that on the very definition.

Agliving06

Do you agree with Luther in section 168 of "On the Bondage of the Will" that the hinge on which the whole reformation turns was the issue of the will?
That's basically what Luther stated. Luther stated that purgatory, the papacy, and prayers to saints were secondary issues. He agreed with St. Augustine and many argue St. Aquinas, the two doctors of the church, on the issue of the will being central to his view of justification by faith alone, but a faith that is not alone.

Patriot4301 said:

---

Agliving06

Do you agree with Luther in section 168 of "On the Bondage of the Will" that the hinge on which the whole reformation turns was the issue of the will?
That's basically what Luther stated. Luther stated that purgatory, the papacy, and prayers to saints were secondary issues. He agreed with St. Augustine and many argue St. Aquinas, the two doctors of the church, on the issue of the will being central to his view of justification by faith alone, but a faith that is not alone.

---

Certainly in Luther's view then, and the Lutheran view now, the will and it's role (or lack there of) in Justification is hugely important. It's viewed as the most important doctrine.

I don't think that Luther is necessarily calling the papacy, purgatory, etc "secondary" per se. What he's saying in this section is that he's "wearied" in how his opponents wants to focus on those instead of the core causes of separation. He goes so far as to say there would be more peace and concord if they could resolve these issues.

When it came store St. Augustine, it's been argued the Reformation was really about who most faithfully followed him. That's not to say that he was the sole father, he wasn't, but he was such a pivotal teacher in the west that falling into alignment with him was of the utmost importance for both sides.

I agree with your point.

354-430 AD was when St. Augustine lived and debated Pelagius similarly as Luther debated Erasmus in the sense that both Luther and Augustine had the same view of the will or lack thereof in the regeneration of the Holy Spirit preceding faith.

This also adds to the false claims of novelty.

You pointed out that doctrine develops.
The doctrine of the Trinity took the early church and the Fathers years to work out. That was the focus and demand of the their legacy.

St. Augustine and St. Aquinas did not have to spend so much time on defending and defining the Trinity.

Moreover, sola scriptura never meant nuda scriptura to Luther or Calvin. Never.

It is embarrassing that modern evangelicals largely believe in nuda scriptura, apparently.

Embarrassing, perhaps. But entirely predictable.

The only word of caution I'd give with reading Luther is that while he was brilliant, his writings aren't as careful as you will find with others Reformers. What I mean by that is he was really in the mold of a preacher who was really wrestling with the text to try and understand what the ancients were teaching and why it was different than what Rome taught. You see the struggle and you see that he's less concerned with careful language but with big concepts.

So from there you turn to Melanchthon, Chemntiz and Gerhard to see everything get "systematized" by true scholars. I think this was a skill that Luther either did not possess or never bothered to hone. That's why he looked at Melanchthon's Loci with amazement.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The only word of caution I'd give with reading Luther is that while he was brilliant, his writings aren't as careful as you will find with others Reformers. What I mean by that is he was really in the mold of a preacher who was really wrestling with the text to try and understand what the ancients were teaching and why it was different than what Rome taught. You see the struggle and you see that he's less concerned with careful language but with big concepts.

So from there you turn to Melanchthon, Chemntiz and Gerhard to see everything get "systematized" by true scholars. I think this was a skill that Luther either did not possess or never bothered to hone. That's why he looked at Melanchthon's Loci with amazement.

---

Yeah but Melanchthon left out the most central issue causing the Reformation, according to Luther, which was the issue of the will.

I agree with Luther and so did Calvin, a second generation Reformer. He systematized better.

How can you leave out the hinge on which the whole turns and be Lutheran?

Zobel said:

---

Embarrassing, perhaps. But entirely predictable.

---

The Reformed tradition inside of Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, and to some degree Particular Baptists do not hold to nuda scriptura.

I'm pretty sure the Missouri Synod Lutherans, for instance, do not hold to nuda scriptura either.

So Melanchthon isn't a real Lutheran?

It's a distinction without a difference. When you say that scripture is the sole, prime, and ultimate authority, whatever provisos you add on top become irrelevant by comparison.

Patriot4301 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The only word of caution I'd give with reading Luther is that while he was brilliant, his writings aren't as careful as you will find with others Reformers. What I mean by that is he was really in the mold of a preacher who was really wrestling with the text to try and understand what the ancients were teaching and why it was different than what Rome taught. You see the struggle and you see that he's less concerned with careful language but with big concepts.

So from there you turn to Melanchthon, Chemntiz and Gerhard to see everything get "systematized" by true scholars. I think this was a skill that Luther either did not possess or never bothered to hone. That's why he looked at Melanchthon's Loci with amazement.

---

Yeah but Melanchthon left out the most central issue causing the Reformation, according to Luther, which was the issue of the will.

I agree with Luther and so did Calvin, a second generation Reformer. He systematized better.

How can you leave out the hinge on which the whole turns and be Lutheran?

---

Melanchthon was no not accused of leaving out anything about the will. Maybe you're confusing him with Erasmus?

Melanchthon had his faults, but this wasn't one of them.

Augsburg Confession:

Quote:

---

Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work 2] things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man 3] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received 4] through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good 5] or evil. "Good" I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn diverse useful arts, or whatsoever good 6]pertains to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being. "Evil" 7] I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc. 8] They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, 9] (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.

---

You have to be careful with Zobel. At this point he's not much better than a troll when it comes to these topics.

I've never trolled. When I post it is a genuine representation of what I think. My intent is to be irenic and to rationalize my positions and expect others to do the same to positive effect.

I am certainly guilty of engaging beyond the productive limit of discussion. Don't be salty and call names simply because we disagree.

Disagreement is fine.

This is trolling.

Quote:

---

Embarrassing, perhaps. But entirely predictable.

---

and does not fit this comment you made below:

Quote:

---

I've never trolled. When I post it is a genuine representation of what I think. My intent is to be irenic and to rationalize my positions and expect others to do the same to positive effect.

---

But since you claim it wasn't a troll, why was it predictable?

To this day, Lutheranism, Episcopalians, Calvinists and even Anglicans all exist and still follow the basics of the Reformation.

Sure there has been corruption within this tradition, but it's not like the apostolic tradition was successful. The entire reason for the reformation was due to the corruption of Rome. I guess I could claim that was also entirely predictable.

So if you want to say it was predictable in the sense that our sinful nature has caused corruption in man no matter what model we try to follow? Sure I could get behind that..

But to say that it's predictable because of something the reformers did, no I don't buy it and you provided no justification other than the flippant response.

My comment was not flippant. It was predictable. We see in history the guard against the very idea of decoupling scripture from tradition. St Irenaeus addresses it, St Vincent addresses it, St Athanasius addresses it. Jeremias II addressed it at the time. The seeds of division it sowed began to sprout in the first generation, right from the start it was a source and justification for disunity. It continues that way to this day, in this thread.

"I will confidently confess what appears to me to be true, whether it has been asserted by a Catholic or a heretic, whether it has been approved or reproved by a council."

With this attitude endorsed and writ large, how could any other outcome NOT be predicted??

Why even have scripture in the first place if not to be the foundation of doctrine?

I've been reading a lot about this topic recently and I agree with the reformer position.

I'm sorry for being polemical and trolling. I was wrong about predestination being absent in early Lutheran theology after Luther.

I think you misunderstand or are uniformed about the Reformed tradition.

I attended Westminster Seminary for a while and I was taught exactly what you just posted, my Orthodox brother. I learned that in "The Doctrine if God" class with Sinclair Ferguson.

I believe the class taught us dogmatic theology or theology proper.

I also forgot to mention the Dutch Reformed. They also abhor nuda scriptura.

I'm pretty certain that conservative Lutherans also teach the cooperate need for interpreting the word of God.

The scripture promised us teachers. Many of them have passed on their legacy. May we listen lest we repeat errors.

Oh no, he called me a troll, not you. You're fine

I think the problem is that the modern day understanding of sola scriptura is nuda scriptura can't really be addressed by people who follow the older version of sola scriptura. It's a bit of a genie out of the bottle situation, because all of the arguments leveled at Holy Tradition (or to be more specific, the Magisterium) by them can be just as easily repurposed against their own teaching.

Zobel said:

---

My comment was not flippant. It was predictable. We see in history the guard against the very idea of decoupling scripture from tradition. St Irenaeus addresses it, St Vincent addresses it, St Athanasius addresses it. Jeremias II addressed it at the time. The seeds of division it sowed began to sprout in the first generation, right from the start it was a source and justification for disunity. It continues that way to this day, in this thread.

"I will confidently confess what appears to me to be true, whether it has been asserted by a Catholic or a heretic, whether it has been approved or reproved by a council."

With this attitude endorsed and writ large, how could any other outcome NOT be predicted??

---

Sorry for the delay in responding. Hurricanes tend to shift my focus.

However, to your argument or lack there of. nothing you wrote means much of anything since you provide zero specific actual arguments.

It's not surprising though. You need Rome more than you'll admit and it's unfortunately really. You have to have Rome to justify Orthodoxy because if Rome at as a Church falls, Orthodox may fall (though I don't think it would).

So you choose instead to take Luther out of context. That's fine as well. It won't convince anyone who's actually exploring how the west understood christianity. A simple review shows that in fact Rome did in fact have "Ecumenical Councils" that contradicted each other among other issues.

So instead of trying to protect Rome (maybe you favor Rome at this point?) we should actually acknowledge the flaws of Rome and move forward in discussion? Just a thought?

I think I started a thread on this a while back... didn't go as planed. Haha. I'll just watch this time.

Some of the more interesting things in the 7 missing books from the protestant bible are:

• The location of the original ark of the covenant.
• A saint in heaven praying for us on earth.
• Almsgiving atones for sins
• Angels unaware, with the archangel Raphael saving Tobit
• Why physicians are necessary and are sent by God
• A beautiful woman crushing the head (decapitating, actually) of the evil one.
• Hannukah, which Jesus did celebrate, in John 10:22
• A prophecy of the plotting by the Jews to capture and torture Jesus, because He called Himself the Son of God.