POPULAR POSTS
-
Since the rise of Protestantism, there has been a debate on the veneration of the Virgin Mary. Orthodox Christians argue that since Mary is ...
-
From the book The Person in the Orthodox Tradition by Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos, and translated by Esther Williams "&q...
-
Eventhough the Council of Carthage was a local North African Council it became Universal when the decrees were added to the 6th ecumenical ...
-
I am Augustine, thy Father: Thou shalt have no other Fathers before me .
-
Have you ever noticed how Protestantism demonizes (divides) between things which no sane, God-fearing person would ever dare to tear asunder...
LORD JESUS CHRIST,
SON OF GOD,
HAVE MERCY ON US,
THE SINNERS.
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
23 comments:
The first guy doesn't understand sola scriptura. Sola scriptura does not say if the bible does not say it, we can't do it.
It is so tiring to hear someone try and argue against sola scriptura when they don't understand it.
The second guy tries to argue that protestants interpret the bible incorrectly, which really isn't arguing against sola scriptura.
Jimmy,
You are assuming that there is only one Protestant interpretation of Sola Scriptura. If you noticed, the first guy came from a more Anabaptist background. Their school of thought of Sola Scriptura is more consistent than the magistoral one.
Also, the Anabaptists are not the only ones with a more strict view. There are also the other later 19th century protestant restorationist groups like the Churches of Christ (Stone and Campbell). They too would have a view of Sola Scriptura similar to the first guy in the post.
I also noticed that within the Reformed camp, those who tend to follow the Pre-suppositionalism of Gordan Clark would also have a strong tendency towards the Sola Scriptura view as the first guy in the post.
Not to mention the differences between the Reformed and Lutherans in general in regards to the "Rule of Faith of Worship".
And so, there is no such thing as only one protestant interpretation of Sola Scriptura. Back when I was protestant I knew about different interpretations of Sola Fide, and now that I am Orthodox, I am seeing that I have to constantly re-adjust my arguments in regards to Sola Scriptura because it seems as if Each protestant group or individual has a different interpretation or emphasis on a principle of Sola Scriptura. And so an argument that might work with one protestant may not with another.
This is what I have to go through when it comes to the issue of Sola Scriptura. Trust me when I say that another online protestant may or may not have the same interpretation as you.
The following do the same thing. The fourth guy does a great job defining it, but then doesn't really hold to that definition in his arguments.
Jnorm,
I agree there isn't only one interpretation. But I think all protestants would agree with the simple wikipedia definition.
"Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. "
In my mind this what has to be refuted.
jimmy said...
"The second guy tries to argue that protestants interpret the bible incorrectly, which really isn't arguing against sola scriptura."
What is your interpretation of the protestant principle of the "perpetuity of scripture"?
When you combine that with the issue of providing a list of what is and isn't essential for Salvation then you will understand how this relates to the issue of Sola Scriptura.
jimmy said...
The following do the same thing. The fourth guy does a great job defining it, but then doesn't really hold to that definition in his arguments.
How so? Can you point it out to me? What is the minute mark/marks? Also, you do know that the Magisterial view can and often does break down to the Anabaptist view. It may take a little longer to get there, but at the end of the day, they both have the same soft under belly.
jimmy said...
Jnorm,
I agree there isn't only one interpretation. But I think all protestants would agree with the simple wikipedia definition.
"Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. "
In my mind this what has to be refuted.
This isn't the onlything that has to be refuted. I mentioned one principle earlier....the perpetuity of scripture.
You just mentioned another.....the sufficiency of scripture. However, what you quoted above is not that simple. Roman Catholics have a thing called material sufficiency and formal sufficiency of Scripture. The issue of "private interpretation" vs "the rule of faith" comes to play here. As well as with the other issue.
But all of these things should be talked about when discussing the issue of Sola Scriptura.
Jnorm,
"perpetuity of scripture"
I've never heard that terminology and a google search turns up nothing. I could try and take a guess, but I'd rather you explain further.
"The following do the same thing."
How so? Can you point it out to me? What is the minute mark/marks?
I could spend an hour going through and finding each little point, but I'm not going to. So I will summarize.
Third link around minute 46-48, he talks about how protestants don't interpret scripture correctly because they are not connected to the churches tradition.
The fourth link, around 15 he talks about protestants misinterpreting the bible even amongst himself.
"then doesn't really hold to that definition in his arguments"
He talks about how some protestants say if the bible doesn't speak on it, it is up to the local church. Then goes to say that since the bible doesn't spell out a liturgy, it can't be sufficient.
My bad, it's "the perspicuity of scripture"
This isn't the onlything that has to be refuted.
I understand that the Orthodox don't feel that is the only thing that needs to be refuted. But you do feel it needs to be refuted so.......refute it.
In regards to the 4th link, he is probably talking about the Reformed principle of the rule of faith of worship. The Reformed do connect that with the issue of Sola Scriptura. The Lutheran view is different.
Jimmy said:
I understand that the Orthodox don't feel that is the only thing that needs to be refuted. But you do feel it needs to be refuted so.......refute it.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
and
1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
1 John 2:27
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.
1.) The Apostles taught orally and not just by letter
2.) The Church is the piller and foundation of Truth
3.) The "you" is plural and so it is communal/koinonia, it is conciliar, it is a group. We believe the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all Truth.
And so, Scripture is not all that there is when it comes to Salvation and Truth. Scripture is one aspect of Apostolic Tradition and not the whole thing itself.
All these scriptures do is show that tradition has its place. That many aspects of tradition and oral teaching are correct, not all.
1 John 2:26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray.
One verse before one you mentioned it is clearly shown that not all oral teachings are correct. How do we know that the church hasn't in any single aspect been led astray?
Jimmy,
The Oral teaching I was speaking of was that of the Apostles. Are you saying that not all Oral teaching from the Apostles is correct?
Also the New Testament doesn't give us much detail on how Christians worshiped. And so the Church is also essential when it comes to the preservation of Christian Truth and ideas. It's not just the Bible alone.
Check out the post on here about "Oral Tradition". The Bible itself is a mixture of both. And it shows the Authority of the Church to not only compile the Scriptures, but to also implement/add more verses and chapters to the Scriptures from the same original Oral Tradition. The Oral tradition was still fresh in the mind of the Church for the first few hundred years.
I understand you are referring to the Apostles teaching. But there were others who were teaching as well. At even in the first century numerous churches succumb to their false teaching. How can we say that none of these false teachings made their way into the Orthodox faith?
I understand you are referring to the Apostles' writings. But there were others who were writing as well. Even in the first centuries, numerous churches succumbed to their false writings. How can we say that none of these false writings made their way into the Orthodox canon?
Lvka,
Well luckily with writings their are actually records. We have numerous copy of numerous translations that hold true to earliest documents we have found. Oral tradition has no such record.
We're saved by faith, not by proofs.
Lvka,
Is that you saying we have no proof?
No, that's me saying that, as believers, and not skeptics, we should get our priorities straight. And that's also me saying that no textual variant of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reads: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold only the traditions which ye have been taught by our epistle, for those by word are unreliable, and probably false.
"We have numerous copy of numerous translations that hold true to earliest documents we have found."
Whether the documents have been preserved accurately isn't the issue as much as which documents should be in there. Early compilations of the New Testament were slightly different from the one that the Church agreed on eventually, which is the one that Protestants use now. Thus Lvka's point: Sola Scriptura has to assume that no uninspired books were accidentally allowed to slip into the Bible, the same way Sacred Tradition is also assumed to be uncontaminated by fake teaching.
To actually answer Jimmy's question, instead of just torturing him by throwing his arguments back at him, thus forcing him to self-analyze... there was but one Christ, Who taught His Holy Apostles --the Twelve and the Seventy-- but one doctrine. When these Apostles then dispersed throughout the whole then-known world, --from India to Romania to Ethiopia to Spain to Rome to Greece to Asia Minor--, they naturally taught but this self-same dogma, so the true faith was but one in all parts of the world inhabited by orthodox-catholic Christians: those who received these one doctrine. Heresies, on the other hand, (and please note here the plural) could not have suddenly originated in all these places at once, unrelatedly, as a unified teaching, as it were. So that's how the orthodox-catholic teaching was distinguished from all the other various --and inherently local, disconnected, and conflicting-- teachings: by the organic unity which it naturally possessed from birth, being one and the same throughout the whole inhabited world.
jimmy said...
I understand you are referring to the Apostles teaching. But there were others who were teaching as well. At even in the first century numerous churches succumb to their false teaching. How can we say that none of these false teachings made their way into the Orthodox faith?
Because the Christians in the 2nd and 3rd century said so!
You will note what Tertullian(around 197 A.D....still in his Orthodox years) had to say about the Apostles and the common Faith they preached to the churches: (Tertullian was arguing against the claims and arguments of the heretics Marcion, Apelles, Philumene, Valentinus, Nigidius, and Hermogenes)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm (Read chapters 20 to 42)
Also check out my posts here:
Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 1
Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 2
Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 3
Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 4
Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 5