OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Protestant Discussion => Topic started by: Alfred Persson on August 10, 2011, 01:45:41 PM

Title: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 10, 2011, 01:45:41 PM
Our Lord Jesus taught all must obey the Word of God regardless how hypocritical its teachers are. We must not follow those who “say and do not do”---“we are to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That is the definition of sola scriptura.

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
 3 "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
 4 "For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
 5 "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.
 6 "They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues,
 7 "greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men,`Rabbi, Rabbi.'
 8 "But you, do not be called`Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.
 9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
 10 "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
 11 "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Mat 23:1-11 NKJ)

Author David Wooten contradicts this claiming Christ commands obedience to Jewish extra-biblical traditions in Matthew 23:1ff!

BUT if he really believed that he would list the precise Jewish Traditions Christians today must obey.

As David did not do that, it’s clear he doesn’t believe his own interpretation.
Therefore why should we?


Quote from:  The Unbiblical Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, by David Wooten Friday, 31 October 2008 21:16
Christ tells the Israelites to fulfill the requirements given to them by the Pharisees, but not to imitate them in their hypocrisy. Yet, listen to the reason given by Our Lord for why the Israelites were nonetheless bound to obey the Pharisees:

If that is so, why did Christ immediately overturn their extra-biblical requirements, saying:

4 "For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
 5 "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.
 6 "They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues,
 7 "greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men,`Rabbi, Rabbi.'
 8 "But you, do not be called`Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.
 9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
 10 "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
 11 "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Mat 23:1-11 NKJ)

Their extra-biblical traditions re phylacteries, seating in synagogues, religious titles elevating themselves above their students, were immediately condemned by Jesus.  And He wasn’t finished, He goes on to condemn their extra-biblical requirements for prayer, proselytizing, swearing and all the traditions that went against justice, mercy and faith.):

Lest any think we should follow the extra-biblical traditions of the Pharisees, Christ goes on to condemn even more extra-biblical traditions of the Pharisees and scribes:
14 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
 15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
 16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say,`Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.'
 17 "Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?
 18 "And,`Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.'
 19 "Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?
 20 "Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it.
 21 "He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it.
 22 "And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.
 23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
 24 "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! (Mat 23:14-24 NKJ))

So what precisely did Christ mean by πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν “all therefore whatever if-ever” they bid? The same as πάντα ὅσα ἐὰν  “all whatever if-ever” in Mat 21:22 
"And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Mat 21:22 NKJ)

Whatever you ask according to God’s Law, believing you will receive. If you should ask for money, power, sex, or anything against the Law of God, you certainly will NOT receive that from God.

Same with those who sat and taught the Word of God, whatsoever they properly fetched from the Law, that we are to obey, NOT their unscriptural extra-biblical traditions.
Quote from: Ibid
“…The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Matthew 23:2-3). Notice that the reason Christ gave for the Pharisees’ authority was that they sat “in Moses’ seat.”
Incorrect, the aorist ἐκάθισαν  “they seated themselves” is literal, not a metaphor, ancient synagogues had literal seats in honor of Moses from which the Law and the prophets were read and expounded.

Quote
Among the finds within the debris heaped in the synagogue was this “Throne of Moses,” carved of black basalt and decorated with an incised rosette on the back support and a four-line Aramaic inscription on the front. The Aramaic reads: “Be remembered for good Yudan the son of Ishmael who made this porch and its staircase. As his reward may he have a share with the righteous.” This chair, as a type, seems to be known in the New Testament as the Seat of Moses (Matthew 23:2). The Biblical World in Pictures; 2003. Biblical Archaeology Society.

While the scribes could claim Ezra gave them divine teaching authority, the Pharisees could not---they were laymen. Therefore it would be act of defiance for them usurp Mosaic authority and sit literally in Moses’ seat, therefore  the aorist literally translates as  “they seated themselves” :

saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; (Mat 23:2 NAS)
saying, 'On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees; (Mat 23:2 YLT)


It was consistent with their hypocrisy and rebellion against God that they sat themselves down in Moses’ seat, God did not put them there. They also claimed to be “masters” in contradiction to God’s law we are all equals. Christ was certainly not condoning their action, the entire chapter is one of condemnation and rejection of all  they claimed to be and teach, that was against the Word of God.

Because copies of scripture were expensive and rare before the invention of the printing press, most heard the Word of God via these hypocrites at the synagogue.  Christ’s point was clear, regardless how hypocritical its teachers are, the Word of God is Supreme and undiminished in authority over the people, all are to obey whatsoever is properly fetched from it, even if it were the Devil himself who  taught it= sola scriptura. God’s Word is undiminished in authority by anything in this world.

We are commanded not to follow them in their rebellion against God’s Word, we must obey it without hesitation, when we lay down, when we get up and when we are about in the way. God’s Word must be before our eyes, continually, to do it (Deut 6:7-9; 11:18-22).

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. (Jam 1:22 NKJ)



Quote from: Ibid
The start of “Moses’ seat,”—the seat of judgment from which Moses ruled on the Law before Israel in the Old Testament—is recorded in Exodus 18:13.
If Christ thought the seat imparted Mosaic authority upon those who sat in it, the verses Mat 23:5-39 would not exist, especially this:
33 "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? (Mat 23:33 NKJ)

Clearly they lacked Moses authority for teaching what they did.

Quote from: Ibid
However, the position of authority held by the Pharisees—whose supposed connection to that of Moses in Exodus was certainly extrabiblical—was nonetheless accepted and promoted by no less than the Lord Himself.

Incorrect, the grammar and syntax is they had no authority and context confirms this as Christ lists various traditions as examples of what His disciples are not to obey.
The apostle Peter and his fellow apostles confirms this interpretation when those who sat in Moses’ seat commanded rebellion against the Word of God:

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.


Quote from: Ibid
While these two passages are often used together by Evangelicals to address the Roman Catholic Church’s claims to the papacy, such an issue is, firstly, a non-issue for the Orthodox, and, secondly, an ironic one for us, as the Protestants frequently use two passages that, if examined closely, present a very real problem for those very people who would seek to establish a Scripture-only view of what can be seen as authoritative for the believer.


As Christ taught obedience to God regardless what men say or do, it hardly presents a problem for sola scripturists of any denomination.

Quote from: Ibid
While the establishment of Moses’ seat is found within Scripture, the directive to continue it—not to mention who would then hold its authority within the community of Israel—are found absolutely nowhere within the Old Testament, yet the words of Our Lord make clear that this extrabiblical tradition is not only not anti-biblical, but also a good, worthy tradition in spite of its not being written down.

Just like today scripture reading and teaching happen in known locations, that ancient Jewish synagogues honored Moses by referring to this area as “his seat” is hardly warrant for unscriptural traditions which Christ condemned throughout His Advent:

13 "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."
 14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear Me, everyone, and understand:
 15 "There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man.
 16 "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" (Mar 7:13-16 NKJ)

It is defiling to teach the traditions of men that contradict the Word of God, and no defiled person can stand in the presence of the Almighty Holy God. “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”




Quote from: Ibid
The sola scriptura adherent, then, has to provide and answer for why Our Lord here seems to be going against the idea that only that which is written in Scripture is to be accepted as authoritative for the people of God.

Unsound straw man argument as sola scriptura does not say only what is in scripture can be accepted. As God put teachers in the church these clearly have some authority:

And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers… (1Co 12:28 NKJ)


But like those who sat in Moses Seat, these cannot contradict what is in the Word of God:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:8 NKJ)

Sola scriptura means the Only Scripture is Supreme because only it is indisputably the Word of God and He is indisputably the Supreme Being. It does not mean the church councils, fathers or modern day teachers have no authority over God’s people, it only means said authority cannot contradict what is in God’s Word.

Sola scriptura is the essence of Christ’s message to the people, everywhere and every place Christ taught obedience to God above men and their traditions.


Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Asteriktos on August 10, 2011, 01:52:51 PM
How dare you challenge David "The Woot!" Wooten! Also, unless I'm missing it, you never identified where The Woot said these things. And finally, why must you create another thread on this, causing this sickness to spread?

EDIT--I see you've now edited your post to give the name of the document you're talking about... though still with no link.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 10, 2011, 01:54:50 PM
And how then does one interpret scripture, without the aid of Tradition?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 10, 2011, 01:56:19 PM
How dare you challenge David "The Woot!" Wooten! Also, unless I'm missing it, you never identified where The Woot said these things. And finally, why must you create another thread on this, causing this sickness to spread?

EDIT--I see you've now edited your post to give the name of the document you're talking about... though still with no link.

Isn't the article he's referencing available right here on OC.net?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Asteriktos on August 10, 2011, 02:02:04 PM
How dare you challenge David "The Woot!" Wooten! Also, unless I'm missing it, you never identified where The Woot said these things. And finally, why must you create another thread on this, causing this sickness to spread?

EDIT--I see you've now edited your post to give the name of the document you're talking about... though still with no link.

Isn't the article he's referencing available right here on OC.net?

Yeah, at this location (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37:the-unbiblical-doctrine-of-sola-scriptura&catid=14:articles&Itemid=2), I just didn't want to give al any slack... he should have posted a link himself  :angel:
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on August 10, 2011, 02:10:15 PM
Angry BARG!!!!!
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 10, 2011, 02:14:51 PM
How dare you challenge David "The Woot!" Wooten! Also, unless I'm missing it, you never identified where The Woot said these things. And finally, why must you create another thread on this, causing this sickness to spread?

EDIT--I see you've now edited your post to give the name of the document you're talking about... though still with no link.

Isn't the article he's referencing available right here on OC.net?

Yeah, at this location (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37:the-unbiblical-doctrine-of-sola-scriptura&catid=14:articles&Itemid=2), I just didn't want to give al any slack... he should have posted a link himself  :angel:

That's precisely why I didn't post a link to it. I didn't want to do his homework for him.  ;)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 10, 2011, 02:21:40 PM
How dare you challenge David "The Woot!" Wooten! Also, unless I'm missing it, you never identified where The Woot said these things. And finally, why must you create another thread on this, causing this sickness to spread?

EDIT--I see you've now edited your post to give the name of the document you're talking about... though still with no link.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=14:articles&id=37:the-unbiblical-doctrine-of-sola-scriptura

Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 10, 2011, 02:24:43 PM
Our Lord Jesus taught all must obey the Word of God regardless how hypocritical its teachers are. We must not follow those who “say and do not do”---“we are to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That is the definition of sola scriptura.

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
 3 "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
 4 "For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
 5 "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.
 6 "They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues,
 7 "greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men,`Rabbi, Rabbi.'
 8 "But you, do not be called`Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.
 9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
 10 "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
 11 "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Mat 23:1-11 NKJ)

Author David Wooten contradicts this claiming Christ commands obedience to Jewish extra-biblical traditions in Matthew 23:1ff!

BUT if he really believed that he would list the precise Jewish Traditions Christians today must obey.

As David did not do that, it’s clear he doesn’t believe his own interpretation.
Therefore why should we?


Quote from:  The Unbiblical Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, by David Wooten Friday, 31 October 2008 21:16
Christ tells the Israelites to fulfill the requirements given to them by the Pharisees, but not to imitate them in their hypocrisy. Yet, listen to the reason given by Our Lord for why the Israelites were nonetheless bound to obey the Pharisees:

If that is so, why did Christ immediately overturn their extra-biblical requirements, saying:

4 "For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
 5 "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.
 6 "They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues,
 7 "greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men,`Rabbi, Rabbi.'
 8 "But you, do not be called`Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.
 9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
 10 "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
 11 "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Mat 23:1-11 NKJ)

Their extra-biblical traditions re phylacteries, seating in synagogues, religious titles elevating themselves above their students, were immediately condemned by Jesus.  And He wasn’t finished, He goes on to condemn their extra-biblical requirements for prayer, proselytizing, swearing and all the traditions that went against justice, mercy and faith.):

Lest any think we should follow the extra-biblical traditions of the Pharisees, Christ goes on to condemn even more extra-biblical traditions of the Pharisees and scribes:
14 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
 15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
 16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say,`Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.'
 17 "Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?
 18 "And,`Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.'
 19 "Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?
 20 "Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it.
 21 "He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it.
 22 "And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.
 23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
 24 "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! (Mat 23:14-24 NKJ))

So what precisely did Christ mean by πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν “all therefore whatever if-ever” they bid? The same as πάντα ὅσα ἐὰν  “all whatever if-ever” in Mat 21:22  
"And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Mat 21:22 NKJ)

Whatever you ask according to God’s Law, believing you will receive. If you should ask for money, power, sex, or anything against the Law of God, you certainly will NOT receive that from God.

Same with those who sat and taught the Word of God, whatsoever they properly fetched from the Law, that we are to obey, NOT their unscriptural extra-biblical traditions.
Quote from: Ibid
“…The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Matthew 23:2-3). Notice that the reason Christ gave for the Pharisees’ authority was that they sat “in Moses’ seat.”
Incorrect, the aorist ἐκάθισαν  “they seated themselves” is literal, not a metaphor, ancient synagogues had literal seats in honor of Moses from which the Law and the prophets were read and expounded.

Quote
Among the finds within the debris heaped in the synagogue was this “Throne of Moses,” carved of black basalt and decorated with an incised rosette on the back support and a four-line Aramaic inscription on the front. The Aramaic reads: “Be remembered for good Yudan the son of Ishmael who made this porch and its staircase. As his reward may he have a share with the righteous.” This chair, as a type, seems to be known in the New Testament as the Seat of Moses (Matthew 23:2). The Biblical World in Pictures; 2003. Biblical Archaeology Society.

While the scribes could claim Ezra gave them divine teaching authority, the Pharisees could not---they were laymen. Therefore it would be act of defiance for them usurp Mosaic authority and sit literally in Moses’ seat, therefore  the aorist literally translates as  “they seated themselves” :

saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; (Mat 23:2 NAS)
saying, 'On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees; (Mat 23:2 YLT)


It was consistent with their hypocrisy and rebellion against God that they sat themselves down in Moses’ seat, God did not put them there. They also claimed to be “masters” in contradiction to God’s law we are all equals. Christ was certainly not condoning their action, the entire chapter is one of condemnation and rejection of all  they claimed to be and teach, that was against the Word of God.

Because copies of scripture were expensive and rare before the invention of the printing press, most heard the Word of God via these hypocrites at the synagogue.  Christ’s point was clear, regardless how hypocritical its teachers are, the Word of God is Supreme and undiminished in authority over the people, all are to obey whatsoever is properly fetched from it, even if it were the Devil himself who  taught it= sola scriptura. God’s Word is undiminished in authority by anything in this world.

We are commanded not to follow them in their rebellion against God’s Word, we must obey it without hesitation, when we lay down, when we get up and when we are about in the way. God’s Word must be before our eyes, continually, to do it (Deut 6:7-9; 11:18-22).

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. (Jam 1:22 NKJ)



Quote from: Ibid
The start of “Moses’ seat,”—the seat of judgment from which Moses ruled on the Law before Israel in the Old Testament—is recorded in Exodus 18:13.
If Christ thought the seat imparted Mosaic authority upon those who sat in it, the verses Mat 23:5-39 would not exist, especially this:
33 "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? (Mat 23:33 NKJ)

Clearly they lacked Moses authority for teaching what they did.

Quote from: Ibid
However, the position of authority held by the Pharisees—whose supposed connection to that of Moses in Exodus was certainly extrabiblical—was nonetheless accepted and promoted by no less than the Lord Himself.

Incorrect, the grammar and syntax is they had no authority and context confirms this as Christ lists various traditions as examples of what His disciples are not to obey.
The apostle Peter and his fellow apostles confirms this interpretation when those who sat in Moses’ seat commanded rebellion against the Word of God:

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.


Quote from: Ibid
While these two passages are often used together by Evangelicals to address the Roman Catholic Church’s claims to the papacy, such an issue is, firstly, a non-issue for the Orthodox, and, secondly, an ironic one for us, as the Protestants frequently use two passages that, if examined closely, present a very real problem for those very people who would seek to establish a Scripture-only view of what can be seen as authoritative for the believer.


As Christ taught obedience to God regardless what men say or do, it hardly presents a problem for sola scripturists of any denomination.

Quote from: Ibid
While the establishment of Moses’ seat is found within Scripture, the directive to continue it—not to mention who would then hold its authority within the community of Israel—are found absolutely nowhere within the Old Testament, yet the words of Our Lord make clear that this extrabiblical tradition is not only not anti-biblical, but also a good, worthy tradition in spite of its not being written down.

Just like today scripture reading and teaching happen in known locations, that ancient Jewish synagogues honored Moses by referring to this area as “his seat” is hardly warrant for unscriptural traditions which Christ condemned throughout His Advent:

13 "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."
 14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear Me, everyone, and understand:
 15 "There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man.
 16 "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" (Mar 7:13-16 NKJ)

It is defiling to teach the traditions of men that contradict the Word of God, and no defiled person can stand in the presence of the Almighty Holy God. “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”




Quote from: Ibid
The sola scriptura adherent, then, has to provide and answer for why Our Lord here seems to be going against the idea that only that which is written in Scripture is to be accepted as authoritative for the people of God.

Unsound straw man argument as sola scriptura does not say only what is in scripture can be accepted. As God put teachers in the church these clearly have some authority:

And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers… (1Co 12:28 NKJ)


But like those who sat in Moses Seat, these cannot contradict what is in the Word of God:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:8 NKJ)

Sola scriptura means the Only Scripture is Supreme because only it is indisputably the Word of God and He is indisputably the Supreme Being. It does not mean the church councils, fathers or modern day teachers have no authority over God’s people, it only means said authority cannot contradict what is in God’s Word.

Sola scriptura is the essence of Christ’s message to the people, everywhere and every place Christ taught obedience to God above men and their traditions.




Addendum:
Wooten's article is here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=14:articles&id=37:the-unbiblical-doctrine-of-sola-scriptura


TO:

Quote from: Ibid
“…The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Matthew 23:2-3). Notice that the reason Christ gave for the Pharisees’ authority was that they sat “in Moses’ seat.”

Incorrect, the aorist ἐκάθισαν  “they seated themselves” is literal, not a metaphor, ancient synagogues had literal seats in honor of Moses from which the Law and the prophets were read and expounded.

ADD:
It was the word of God that imparted authority to what they said, not the chair according to Christ.


THAT THEY ASSUMED authority apart from any chair as is evident from the title "Rabbi," ("Master") they bestowed upon themselves. No doubt they considered themselves worthy to speak from a place of honor in the synagogues, i.e., while seated in the chair of Moses.


Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: primuspilus on August 10, 2011, 03:02:43 PM
Didnt we go over this once before?

PP
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 10, 2011, 04:13:47 PM
Our Lord Jesus taught all must obey the Word of God regardless how hypocritical its teachers are. We must not follow those who “say and do not do”---“we are to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That is the definition of sola scriptura.
That definition works, though, only if we can establish that God speaks only through Scripture, which you have never done convincingly.

Author David Wooten contradicts this claiming Christ commands obedience to Jewish extra-biblical traditions in Matthew 23:1ff!

BUT if he really believed that he would list the precise Jewish Traditions Christians today must obey.

As David did not do that, it’s clear he doesn’t believe his own interpretation.
Therefore why should we?

Are you really qualified to know why Mr. Wooten said or did not say something? Do you know his mind that well? I'd like to know how you so mastered the art of telepathy if you do.

Quote from:  The Unbiblical Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, by David Wooten Friday, 31 October 2008 21:16
Christ tells the Israelites to fulfill the requirements given to them by the Pharisees, but not to imitate them in their hypocrisy. Yet, listen to the reason given by Our Lord for why the Israelites were nonetheless bound to obey the Pharisees:

If that is so, why did Christ immediately overturn their extra-biblical requirements, saying:

4 "For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
 5 "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.
 6 "They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues,
 7 "greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men,`Rabbi, Rabbi.'
 8 "But you, do not be called`Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.
 9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
 10 "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
 11 "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Mat 23:1-11 NKJ)

Their extra-biblical traditions re phylacteries, seating in synagogues, religious titles elevating themselves above their students, were immediately condemned by Jesus.  And He wasn’t finished, He goes on to condemn their extra-biblical requirements for prayer, proselytizing, swearing and all the traditions that went against justice, mercy and faith.):
But were these things that Christ condemned extrabiblical traditions or behaviors that showed how the Pharisees didn't even follow their own traditions?

Lest any think we should follow the extra-biblical traditions of the Pharisees, Christ goes on to condemn even more extra-biblical traditions of the Pharisees and scribes:
14 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
 15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
 16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say,`Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.'
 17 "Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?
 18 "And,`Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.'
 19 "Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?
 20 "Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it.
 21 "He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it.
 22 "And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.
 23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
 24 "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! (Mat 23:14-24 NKJ))
But again, were these things that Christ condemned extrabiblical traditions or behaviors that showed how the Pharisees didn't even follow their own traditions?

So what precisely did Christ mean by πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν “all therefore whatever if-ever” they bid? The same as πάντα ὅσα ἐὰν  “all whatever if-ever” in Mat 21:22  
"And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Mat 21:22 NKJ)

Whatever you ask according to God’s Law, believing you will receive. If you should ask for money, power, sex, or anything against the Law of God, you certainly will NOT receive that from God.

Same with those who sat and taught the Word of God, whatsoever they properly fetched from the Law, that we are to obey, NOT their unscriptural extra-biblical traditions.
How do you know that this is what Christ meant?

Quote from: Ibid
“…The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Matthew 23:2-3). Notice that the reason Christ gave for the Pharisees’ authority was that they sat “in Moses’ seat.”
Incorrect, the aorist ἐκάθισαν  “they seated themselves” is literal, not a metaphor, ancient synagogues had literal seats in honor of Moses from which the Law and the prophets were read and expounded.

Quote
Among the finds within the debris heaped in the synagogue was this “Throne of Moses,” carved of black basalt and decorated with an incised rosette on the back support and a four-line Aramaic inscription on the front. The Aramaic reads: “Be remembered for good Yudan the son of Ishmael who made this porch and its staircase. As his reward may he have a share with the righteous.” This chair, as a type, seems to be known in the New Testament as the Seat of Moses (Matthew 23:2). The Biblical World in Pictures; 2003. Biblical Archaeology Society.
Why do you trust this as evidence of a literal understanding of "Moses' Seat" and that Jesus was NOT speaking metaphorically? You've clearly shown that you can't even represent MY words correctly! Why should I trust what you have to say about anyone else's?

While the scribes could claim Ezra gave them divine teaching authority, the Pharisees could not---they were laymen. Therefore it would be act of defiance for them usurp Mosaic authority and sit literally in Moses’ seat, therefore  the aorist literally translates as  “they seated themselves” :

saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; (Mat 23:2 NAS)
saying, 'On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees; (Mat 23:2 YLT)
And yet the Gospel shows that Jesus recognized the legitimacy of the Pharisees' teaching authority as emanating from the fact that they sit in Moses' Seat, regardless of how they got there.

It was consistent with their hypocrisy and rebellion against God that they sat themselves down in Moses’ seat, God did not put them there. They also claimed to be “masters” in contradiction to God’s law we are all equals. Christ was certainly not condoning their action, the entire chapter is one of condemnation and rejection of all  they claimed to be and teach, that was against the Word of God.
Where is this interpretation found in the Bible?

Because copies of scripture were expensive and rare before the invention of the printing press, most heard the Word of God via these hypocrites at the synagogue.  Christ’s point was clear, regardless how hypocritical its teachers are, the Word of God is Supreme and undiminished in authority over the people, all are to obey whatsoever is properly fetched from it, even if it were the Devil himself who  taught it= sola scriptura. God’s Word is undiminished in authority by anything in this world.

We are commanded not to follow them in their rebellion against God’s Word, we must obey it without hesitation, when we lay down, when we get up and when we are about in the way. God’s Word must be before our eyes, continually, to do it (Deut 6:7-9; 11:18-22).

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. (Jam 1:22 NKJ)

But this is based on the a priori association of "Word of God" solely with the Scriptures, the very assumption that you're trying to prove. Don't you think this reasoning rather circular?

Quote from: Ibid
The start of “Moses’ seat,”—the seat of judgment from which Moses ruled on the Law before Israel in the Old Testament—is recorded in Exodus 18:13.
If Christ thought the seat imparted Mosaic authority upon those who sat in it, the verses Mat 23:5-39 would not exist, especially this:
33 "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? (Mat 23:33 NKJ)

Clearly they lacked Moses authority for teaching what they did.
How is this not merely further evidence that Jesus did not question the Pharisees' authority but condemned their hypocrisy?

Quote from: Ibid
However, the position of authority held by the Pharisees—whose supposed connection to that of Moses in Exodus was certainly extrabiblical—was nonetheless accepted and promoted by no less than the Lord Himself.

Incorrect, the grammar and syntax is they had no authority and context confirms this as Christ lists various traditions as examples of what His disciples are not to obey.
The apostle Peter and his fellow apostles confirms this interpretation when those who sat in Moses’ seat commanded rebellion against the Word of God:

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.
Alfred, this is merely another restatement of that which you've been asked repeatedly to prove, that God speaks solely through the Scriptures. Until you can prove this thesis that is so fundamental to ALL your pontifications on this forum, your arguments will never be convincing.

Quote from: Ibid
While these two passages are often used together by Evangelicals to address the Roman Catholic Church’s claims to the papacy, such an issue is, firstly, a non-issue for the Orthodox, and, secondly, an ironic one for us, as the Protestants frequently use two passages that, if examined closely, present a very real problem for those very people who would seek to establish a Scripture-only view of what can be seen as authoritative for the believer.


As Christ taught obedience to God regardless what men say or do, it hardly presents a problem for sola scripturists of any denomination.

Quote from: Ibid
While the establishment of Moses’ seat is found within Scripture, the directive to continue it—not to mention who would then hold its authority within the community of Israel—are found absolutely nowhere within the Old Testament, yet the words of Our Lord make clear that this extrabiblical tradition is not only not anti-biblical, but also a good, worthy tradition in spite of its not being written down.

Just like today scripture reading and teaching happen in known locations, that ancient Jewish synagogues honored Moses by referring to this area as “his seat” is hardly warrant for unscriptural traditions which Christ condemned throughout His Advent:

13 "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."
 14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear Me, everyone, and understand:
 15 "There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man.
 16 "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" (Mar 7:13-16 NKJ)

It is defiling to teach the traditions of men that contradict the Word of God, and no defiled person can stand in the presence of the Almighty Holy God. “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”
Outside of your rant against icons, I'm not aware that you've ever shown how any of the extrabiblical practices and doctrines of the Orthodox Church even appear to contradict Scripture.

Quote from: Ibid
The sola scriptura adherent, then, has to provide and answer for why Our Lord here seems to be going against the idea that only that which is written in Scripture is to be accepted as authoritative for the people of God.

Unsound straw man argument as sola scriptura does not say only what is in scripture can be accepted. As God put teachers in the church these clearly have some authority:
Now you contradict yourself, Alfred. If God speaks only through Scripture, if that apostolic doctrine we need to know to be fully equipped is found only in Scripture, as you so frequently remind us even in this post I am dissecting, then how can anything else outside the Bible have ANY authority?

And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers… (1Co 12:28 NKJ)
And yet, you appear to submit to no teachers outside yourself. Are you a member of a church? Do you go to church regularly? I'm under the impression that you aren't and you don't.

But like those who sat in Moses Seat, these cannot contradict what is in the Word of God:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:8 NKJ)

Sola scriptura means the Only Scripture is Supreme because only it is indisputably the Word of God and He is indisputably the Supreme Being. It does not mean the church councils, fathers or modern day teachers have no authority over God’s people, it only means said authority cannot contradict what is in God’s Word.
This may surprise you, Alfred, but we actually agree that no true church council, no true father, no true teacher can contradict what is in God's word as revealed in Scripture.

Sola scriptura is the essence of Christ’s message to the people, everywhere and every place Christ taught obedience to God above men and their traditions.
But if Christian doctrine is contained only in Scripture, as you so repeatedly claim, wouldn't it be better to say Christ taught obedience to Scripture, to hell with men and their traditions?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: genesisone on August 10, 2011, 04:17:41 PM
Didnt we go over this once before?

PP
No. Not once. I've lost count. Maybe if we switch to Spanish "once" will work.

(I'd better keep the Mods happy; Sp. once = Eng. eleven)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 10, 2011, 04:20:45 PM
Didnt we go over this once before?

PP
No. Not once. I've lost count. Maybe if we switch to Spanish "once" will work.

(I'd better keep the Mods happy; Sp. once = Eng. eleven)
I like you. :laugh:
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: primuspilus on August 10, 2011, 04:31:16 PM
I mean really...how many times can one guy get pwned concerning Sola Scriptura? It's a fallacy! Enough already!

PP
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Melodist on August 10, 2011, 04:36:15 PM
I've started on a reply, not finfished yet, actually not even finished commenting on the first three veres, but will hopefully follow through with this.

Long story short - they put the letter above the spirit and ignored the two greatest commandments and focused on the externals ignoring the heart - that is what Christ is condemning here. That and some of the things that they "did" according to the references in the NT is that they failed to recognize the fulfillment of the prophecies that they taught, rejected the chief cornerstone, and plotted to and had Christ crucified -  these are also some of the things we are to "not do according to their works".

Anyway has nothing to do with sola scriptura, I actually intend on not even mentioning the doctrine, but to just give comments and references with my aim to simply "call it what it is" without getting too caught up in "what it is not" (can I even do that and still be Orthodox?  ???).
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: orthonorm on August 10, 2011, 04:48:33 PM
And how then does one interpret scripture, without the aid of Tradition?

He needs to read Gadamer. Cliff notes on a few pages of Heidegger.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: orthonorm on August 10, 2011, 04:49:26 PM
Peter and Melodist,

How do you do it?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Melodist on August 10, 2011, 05:09:21 PM
Peter and Melodist,

How do you do it?

I can't speak for anyone else, but there's probably something wrong with me.

Perhaps I should pray before the next time I work on my reply. Everytime I've worked on my blog, I either wrote after praying some of the psalms and prayers form matins in my prayer book or it was a sunday and I was at liturgy that morning. I don't know how it affects the quality of my writing but I feel more free and positively centered in my approach to putting my thoughts down, or maybe that's just my perception and not reality.

Returning to your question, perhaps I need a girlfriend, I'm not really that social of a person and that might be a better use of my time than engaging in internet debates (they're kind of like the special olympics).

Anyway, gonna try to get a little bit of a nap in before work tonight.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: orthonorm on August 10, 2011, 05:18:15 PM
Peter and Melodist,

How do you do it?

I can't speak for anyone else, but there's probably something wrong with me.

Perhaps I should pray before the next time I work on my reply. Everytime I've worked on my blog, I either wrote after praying some of the psalms and prayers form matins in my prayer book or it was a sunday and I was at liturgy that morning. I don't know how it affects the quality of my writing but I feel more free and positively centered in my approach to putting my thoughts down, or maybe that's just my perception and not reality.

Returning to your question, perhaps I need a girlfriend, I'm not really that social of a person and that might be a better use of my time than engaging in internet debates (they're kind of like the special olympics).

Anyway, gonna try to get a little bit of a nap in before work tonight.

I mean the shear ability to read that.

You guys are Code Talkers or something.

I can't bear to even get through three lines of his style.

Oh, since I don't "subscribe" to blogs, I've got to take a look at your new stuff.

Girlfriend? I could have three and still put the sorta numbers I do here.

We'll solve that after the Fast. The column is coming back.

Prayer? You mean, you do that outside of the church building?

Don't put your writing down. It's often some of the most concise and straight-forward stuff around here. And no seems to get angry with you.

Yin to my Yang.





 
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 10, 2011, 05:24:13 PM
Peter and Melodist,

How do you do it?

I can't speak for anyone else, but there's probably something wrong with me.

Perhaps I should pray before the next time I work on my reply. Everytime I've worked on my blog, I either wrote after praying some of the psalms and prayers form matins in my prayer book or it was a sunday and I was at liturgy that morning. I don't know how it affects the quality of my writing but I feel more free and positively centered in my approach to putting my thoughts down, or maybe that's just my perception and not reality.

Returning to your question, perhaps I need a girlfriend, I'm not really that social of a person and that might be a better use of my time than engaging in internet debates (they're kind of like the special olympics).

Anyway, gonna try to get a little bit of a nap in before work tonight.

I mean the shear ability to read that.

You guys are Code Talkers or something.

I can't bear to even get through three lines of his style.

Oh, since I don't "subscribe" to blogs, I've got to take a look at your new stuff.

Girlfriend? I could have three and still put the sorta numbers I do here.

We'll solve that after the Fast. The column is coming back.

Prayer? You mean, you do that outside of the church building?

Don't put your writing down. It's often some of the most concise and straight-forward stuff around here. And no seems to get angry with you.

Yin to my Yang.
Listening to others speak in my Toastmasters meetings helps.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: DennyB on August 10, 2011, 06:17:23 PM
Sola Scripturist serve a "book god" not a living, breathing,personal,and EVER PRESENT human and divine God, in Jesus Christ. Nuff Said!!

P.S. And using the Latin here, is somehow supposed to make this even more convincing,get real!!!
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on August 10, 2011, 06:51:24 PM
We'll solve that after the Fast. The column is coming back.

Us old-school REAL Orthodox don't start the Dormition Fast until Sunday. You Newbie Calendarists are always throwing my True rhythm off.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: biro on August 10, 2011, 06:55:06 PM
The phrase he made up isn't in Scripture, or anywhere else except his threads on this board.

Also, once again, the passage he picked to 'explain' doesn't have anything to do with the claim he makes about it.

 ???

He couldn't win if he wanted to.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 12:17:51 AM
Our Lord Jesus taught all must obey the Word of God regardless how hypocritical its teachers are. We must not follow those who “say and do not do”---“we are to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That is the definition of sola scriptura.
That definition works, though, only if we can establish that God speaks only through Scripture, which you have never done convincingly.

I never tried, it would be wrong. God speaks through His servants, and that ends up being written down. So the question to be answered, are there servants of God through whom He speaks today. Many cults say yes, and both Catholic and Orthodox (evidently) believe the word of God is in their “living tradition”, but that isn’t what the apostles taught:

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

Jude’s words convince me, why don’t they convince you?


Author David Wooten contradicts this claiming Christ commands obedience to Jewish extra-biblical traditions in Matthew 23:1ff!

BUT if he really believed that he would list the precise Jewish Traditions Christians today must obey.

As David did not do that, it’s clear he doesn’t believe his own interpretation.
Therefore why should we?

Are you really qualified to know why Mr. Wooten said or did not say something? Do you know his mind that well? I'd like to know how you so mastered the art of telepathy if you do.

Evidently Mr. Wooten's argument and my counter isn't clear to you---if it were you would state precisely how I misunderstood his argument.

I’ll end this here and give you time to reread carefully what we both said, and then either correct my misunderstanding, or your  misunderstanding.

Of course I don’t read minds, so there is no sense continuing until you reread the text and be certain of the issues.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 12:20:18 AM
I've started on a reply, not finfished yet, actually not even finished commenting on the first three veres, but will hopefully follow through with this.

Long story short - they put the letter above the spirit and ignored the two greatest commandments and focused on the externals ignoring the heart - that is what Christ is condemning here. That and some of the things that they "did" according to the references in the NT is that they failed to recognize the fulfillment of the prophecies that they taught, rejected the chief cornerstone, and plotted to and had Christ crucified -  these are also some of the things we are to "not do according to their works".

Anyway has nothing to do with sola scriptura, I actually intend on not even mentioning the doctrine, but to just give comments and references with my aim to simply "call it what it is" without getting too caught up in "what it is not" (can I even do that and still be Orthodox?  ???).


Christ details what He rejects about the Pharisees and Scribes, BOTH their hypocrisy, and a bunch of their extra biblical traditions.

 Any discussion of the spirit of the law is tangential to Christ's purpose, which is what both Mr. Wooten and I refer to.

Such a discussion is irrelevant to sola scriptura, but might be just fine in Sunday School.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theistgal on August 11, 2011, 12:50:52 AM
I'm puzzled as to why you don't think God has any servants through whom He speaks today.

And if that's true, then He's not speaking through you either,  so why should we care what you say?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 02:14:40 AM
I'm puzzled as to why you don't think God has any servants through whom He speaks today.

And if that's true, then He's not speaking through you either,  so why should we care what you say?

I never said God doesn't speak to us today, I merely deny any of that material is "the Word of God" as defined by Paul:

36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?  

37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.  

38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. (1Co 14:36-38 NKJ)  

 
So God gifted the Corinthians with prophets and spiritual men who spoke in tongues and gave "inspired" readings of psalms and scripture:


 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret.
 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.
 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.
 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent.
 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.
 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
 (1Co 14:27-33 NKJ)

But notice, in vs 32 Paul insists these Prophet's control their spirit and make sure what they say is in accord with God's Word. So its possible these be wrong.

So God speaking through me or you is not the same as Him speaking through Paul.

We might get it wrong, but when God spoke through His apostles and prophets, there was no error.

This "special delivery" of the Word of God is over now, having been once delivered, there can't be multiple deliveries:

 3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

So as Scripture alone indisputably is the Word of God, and what we say may not be = sola scriptura, the Bible alone has Supreme authority for doctrine.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 11, 2011, 02:42:57 AM
Our Lord Jesus taught all must obey the Word of God regardless how hypocritical its teachers are. We must not follow those who “say and do not do”---“we are to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That is the definition of sola scriptura.
That definition works, though, only if we can establish that God speaks only through Scripture, which you have never done convincingly.

I never tried, it would be wrong. God speaks through His servants, and that ends up being written down. So the question to be answered, are there servants of God through whom He speaks today. Many cults say yes, and both Catholic and Orthodox (evidently) believe the word of God is in their “living tradition”, but that isn’t what the apostles taught:

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

Jude’s words convince me, why don’t they convince you?

Actually, your words show a misunderstanding of the Orthodox faith. We agree that the faith was once for all delivered to the saints by the Apostles and that nothing can be added to that faith. We recognize that the Holy Spirit is constantly guiding the Church into a deeper understanding of that faith once for all delivered, and that this perpetual guidance is manifest in what we call Tradition, but we don't presume to add anything new to this faith once for all delivered. You, however, must show that everything in this faith once for all delivered was written down and compiled into the Bible. This you have not yet done.

Author David Wooten contradicts this claiming Christ commands obedience to Jewish extra-biblical traditions in Matthew 23:1ff!

BUT if he really believed that he would list the precise Jewish Traditions Christians today must obey.

As David did not do that, it’s clear he doesn’t believe his own interpretation.
Therefore why should we?

Are you really qualified to know why Mr. Wooten said or did not say something? Do you know his mind that well? I'd like to know how you so mastered the art of telepathy if you do.

Evidently Mr. Wooten's argument and my counter isn't clear to you---if it were you would state precisely how I misunderstood his argument.
You don't know MY mind well enough to know what I would or would not do, so don't presume to say such things about me. Now, if you cannot know MY mind, how much less can you presume to know anybody else's?

I’ll end this here and give you time to reread carefully what we both said, and then either correct my misunderstanding, or your  misunderstanding.

Of course I don’t read minds, so there is no sense continuing until you reread the text and be certain of the issues.

I am quite certain of the issues, and I am correcting your misunderstandings. Now, will you accept this correction, or will you ignore it?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Thankful on August 11, 2011, 02:44:44 AM

3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

But it says the FAITH was once for all delivered to the saints, not the written words of God were delivered once for all to the saints.  There's a difference.  By your reasoning, the faith had already been delivered, so how could Jude's letter later make it into Scripture?  

So as Scripture alone indisputably is the Word of God, and what we say may not be = sola scriptura, the Bible alone has Supreme authority for doctrine.

But Christ is the Word of God. Why are you leaving him out of the picture?  

Your seem to have an unhealthy ability to see "written word of God" in places it's not there, Alfred.  Take off the scripture-colored glasses you wear to see what the Church (the one that received the faith once for all) has always said about these things. There's so much more depth and beauty to the Word than you are allowing it.  
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Αριστοκλής on August 11, 2011, 04:53:23 AM
I see the OP argument falls apart in the first three sentences. One has to buy his illogical premise contained therein to begin making sense of his proof-texting.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 11, 2011, 06:24:26 AM
(http://i679.photobucket.com/albums/vv155/tfb69/Misc/movie-popcorn-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Melodist on August 11, 2011, 08:25:50 AM
Christ details what He rejects about the Pharisees and Scribes, BOTH their hypocrisy, and a bunch of their extra biblical traditions.

Any discussion of the spirit of the law is tangential to Christ's purpose, which is what both Mr. Wooten and I refer to.

I thought your point was that Jesus was condemning anything not explicitly spelled in scropiture and that Mr Wooten's point was that Christ endorsed the teaching authority of those who sat in Moses seat. My point will be that Christ acknowledged their teaching authority and condemned not extra-biblical traditions but the traditions of men that "make the word of God of no effect". Jesus didn't have a problem with the extra-biblical tradition of washing hands and doing dishes, he condemned the idea that having clean hands was more important than having a clean heart. By declaring one to be "clean" because of the condition of their hands when their heart was impure was what made "the word of God of no effect" and not the simple act of hand washing.

Quote
Such a discussion is irrelevant to sola scriptura,

That's because it's not in there, which is my point.

Quote
but might be just fine in Sunday School.

Hopefully something postitive will come out of it then and it will prove to be edifying to someone somewhere.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Melodist on August 11, 2011, 08:29:06 AM
You guys are Code Talkers or something.

Oh, that, I got one of those decoder rings that two certain somebodies are always fighting over.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 11, 2011, 08:41:59 AM
You guys are Code Talkers or something.

Oh, that, I got one of those decoder rings that two certain somebodies are always fighting over.
Captain Midnight and Ivan Stark?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Melodist on August 11, 2011, 09:14:25 AM
You guys are Code Talkers or something.

Oh, that, I got one of those decoder rings that two certain somebodies are always fighting over.
Captain Midnight and Ivan Stark?

Who else could it be?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: David Young on August 11, 2011, 09:15:10 AM
Didnt we go over this once before?
No. Not once. I've lost count. Maybe ...Sp. once = Eng. eleven)

I say not eleven, but eleventy times eleven.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 11, 2011, 09:17:50 AM
You guys are Code Talkers or something.

Oh, that, I got one of those decoder rings that two certain somebodies are always fighting over.
Captain Midnight and Ivan Stark?

Who else could it be?
Knowing that referrence makes me feel old beyond my years  :laugh:!
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: primuspilus on August 11, 2011, 09:25:43 AM
Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet. you can make all the arguments you want but facts are facts.

1. Sola cant be true because if it were then the entire New Testament is heretical as it was not yet written and put together yet (NOTE: The New Testament was put together in light of tradition...tradition set down by those who were contemporaries of the apostles, which I mentioned to you before and you conviently ignored)

2. The scriptures of which are spoken of is the Old Testament as the Christians were still members of the Temple AND that was the only scripture at the time.

3. Most "solas" say that now that the scriptures are complete we should be sola scriptura...prove it.

4. These are facts easily proven through history. So, no more copy pasta arguments and scriptures taken out of context. Enough. Your arguments are weak, unconvincing, and TOTALLY bereft of historical accuracy.

PP


NOTE: You are like another Christian who decided to use what he wanted and throw away anything that didnt support his ideas....Martin Luther.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 10:52:29 AM
Our Lord Jesus taught all must obey the Word of God regardless how hypocritical its teachers are. We must not follow those who “say and do not do”---“we are to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That is the definition of sola scriptura.
That definition works, though, only if we can establish that God speaks only through Scripture, which you have never done convincingly.

I never tried, it would be wrong. God speaks through His servants, and that ends up being written down. So the question to be answered, are there servants of God through whom He speaks today. Many cults say yes, and both Catholic and Orthodox (evidently) believe the word of God is in their “living tradition”, but that isn’t what the apostles taught:

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

Jude’s words convince me, why don’t they convince you?

Actually, your words show a misunderstanding of the Orthodox faith. We agree that the faith was once for all delivered to the saints by the Apostles and that nothing can be added to that faith. We recognize that the Holy Spirit is constantly guiding the Church into a deeper understanding of that faith once for all delivered, and that this perpetual guidance is manifest in what we call Tradition, but we don't presume to add anything new to this faith once for all delivered. You, however, must show that everything in this faith once for all delivered was written down and compiled into the Bible. This you have not yet done.

Author David Wooten contradicts this claiming Christ commands obedience to Jewish extra-biblical traditions in Matthew 23:1ff!

BUT if he really believed that he would list the precise Jewish Traditions Christians today must obey.

As David did not do that, it’s clear he doesn’t believe his own interpretation.
Therefore why should we?

Are you really qualified to know why Mr. Wooten said or did not say something? Do you know his mind that well? I'd like to know how you so mastered the art of telepathy if you do.

Evidently Mr. Wooten's argument and my counter isn't clear to you---if it were you would state precisely how I misunderstood his argument.
You don't know MY mind well enough to know what I would or would not do, so don't presume to say such things about me. Now, if you cannot know MY mind, how much less can you presume to know anybody else's?

I’ll end this here and give you time to reread carefully what we both said, and then either correct my misunderstanding, or your  misunderstanding.

Of course I don’t read minds, so there is no sense continuing until you reread the text and be certain of the issues.

I am quite certain of the issues, and I am correcting your misunderstandings. Now, will you accept this correction, or will you ignore it?


Reading comprehension is taught in school.

Not mind reading.

I've repeatedly explained the sola scriptura position to you, but can't seem to communicate it. I'll try again.

I do not believe in solo scriptura, that everything I believe must be explicitly taught in scripture.

I believe in sola scriptura, which is the Bible alone is the final (supreme) authority. I do not have to show everything I believe is  in scripture, I only have to show its not in conflict with scripture, and if I want it to be a “dogma of the faith,” that scripture explicitly teaches it.

If its not explicitly taught in scripture, then it cannot be a rule of the faith.


I have not misunderstood Wooten's argument. if you believe I have, then state precisely how, I cannot read your mind, never claimed i could.

But I can read and understand his argument. If you think I got it wrong, then explain how.


Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: xariskai on August 11, 2011, 11:04:03 AM
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.
Your assumption seems to be "obey God" = sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT), and that unless one ONLY obeys a written text one is disobeying God (correct me if I'm wrong). Seeing sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT) in this passage is completely ridiculous.

First of all, when Peter and John were before the Sanhedrin in Acts 5 **NO NT BOOK HAD BEEN WRITTEN YET**. Answer me this riddle. During the period before the NT was written, what scriptural passage in the OT (remember, there is no NT yet!) told the disciples to baptize? What scriptural passage told them to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit? (if the apostles were ONLY TO OBEY A WRITTEN TEXT, how could they obey Christ unless he wrote his instructions on paper first??). What OT passage told the disciples to witness to "fill Jerusalem with their doctrine" (which they said not doing would be disobedience to God -without a written text available to prove it) or witness to the resurrection? Were they disobeying God in doing and commanding (e.g. in the case of baptism) these (at that time) EXTRA-BIBLICAL THINGS? If there was no scriptural text at that time telling them to fill Jerusalem with their doctrine, on your hypothesis anyone who does something not recorded on paper is disobeying God, Peter and John were disobeying God even as they claimed to be obeying Him.

As for your apparent claim Jesus taught anyone they would be disobeying God unless something was written in scripture, what do you make of this:

Matt 19:20 "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Didn't Christ command His disciples to do things He hadn't written down yet? How can you suppose the disciples' obedience to Christ (e.g. "follow me") is an exception to your principle if you insist anyone obeying anything that isn't ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT (sola scriptura) is disobedience to God? How could Abraham have obeyed God at Mount Moriah, without a scripture telling him to sacrifice his only son on your principle? Or any other action in the OT or NT that was undertaken before a written text existed to command a particular thing be done?

What scripture ever told anyone to write the New Testament? If the authors of the New Testament were writing, with no explicit scriptural command saying "THOU SHALT WRITE A NEW TESTAMENT..." weren't they doing something "extra-scriptural" in that very act, and on your view, disobeying God in the process since writing a NT isn't commanded in the OT?

Think about your absolutism; it leads to ridiculous consequences unless you make literally thousands of exceptions. And yet if even ONE exception must be admitted for any reason whatsoever, your apparent view that one must obey ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT refutes itself.

Esegetically speaking you are importing a hidden assumption into almost every text you cite, e.g. in the Acts text "obey God" = "obey written scripture and nothing whatsoever beyond written scripture." How then can Samuel have obeyed God by delivering a prophecy to the priest Eli in the opening portion of 1 Samuel? Did he find that written in a book before he delivered it?
 
Think about it. Your whole view is self-contradictory and ridiculolz.

And how then does one interpret scripture, without the aid of Tradition?

He needs to read Gadamer. Cliff notes on a few pages of Heidegger.
If Gadamer's thesis that one cannot get to the original intent of a text is the case one cannot help but wonder who Gadamer would write a book for other than himself, or how anyone one who presumed to review his work favorably would suppose they know what it says. Still, when one considers not only the stunningly diverse historiography of biblical interpretation, but also something like this thread, one cannot help but wonder if Gadamer was onto something...
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: IsmiLiora on August 11, 2011, 11:04:33 AM

I believe in sola scriptura, which is the Bible alone is the final (supreme) authority.

I always thought that God was the supreme authority, but maybe I'm in the wrong religion.

That's what gets me about the Sola Scriptura argument. There are moments where it seems halfway convincing, but the absolute reverence given the Bible, especially when the Logos simply transcends the text of the Bible...

Someone told me that I didn't "respect the Bible" during a similar argument. I said, "Wait, am I not supposed to respect God first?"

This is why I don't engage in those kind of arguments.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 11:28:26 AM

I believe in sola scriptura, which is the Bible alone is the final (supreme) authority.

I always thought that God was the supreme authority, but maybe I'm in the wrong religion.

That's what gets me about the Sola Scriptura argument. There are moments where it seems halfway convincing, but the absolute reverence given the Bible, especially when the Logos simply transcends the text of the Bible...

Someone told me that I didn't "respect the Bible" during a similar argument. I said, "Wait, am I not supposed to respect God first?"

This is why I don't engage in those kind of arguments.

Those who consider God the Supreme Being and His Word therefore the Supreme authority, do sometimes speak of scripture as though it is God speaking:

 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." (Gal 3:8 NKJ)

 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (Gal 3:22 NKJ)

But to not realize that is a "figure of speech" is odd.

Why don't you realize Paul is not disrespecting God?

I'm not arguing, just curious.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 11:34:24 AM
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.
Your assumption seems to be "obey God" = sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT), and that unless one ONLY obeys a written text one is disobeying God (correct me if I'm wrong). snip

Prove that argument first, then I'll address the rest.

Go through a stop sign, and explain your position to the judge, that the sign is only written text, that disobeying it was not disobeying the law.

Lets us know if the judge agrees, that disobeying the written command was not disobeying the law.

Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: xariskai on August 11, 2011, 11:36:43 AM
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.
Your assumption seems to be "obey God" = sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT), and that unless one ONLY obeys a written text one is disobeying God (correct me if I'm wrong). snip

Prove that argument first, then I'll address the rest.

Go through a stop sign, and explain your position to the judge, that the sign is only written text, that disobeying it was not disobeying the law.

Lets us know if the judge agrees, that disobeying the written command was not disobeying the law.


Are you saying one must only obey a written text or aren't you?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: IsmiLiora on August 11, 2011, 11:41:18 AM
Those verses do NOT justify Sola Scriptura. They only establish the importance of Scripture, which we agree with.

Just looking through the various translations, including Greek, I find it interesting how some have capitalized Scripture and others haven't. So are they equaling scriptural authority with God's authority now? Does capitalizing the word give the idea more authority than the verse implies?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 11:41:38 AM
Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet.snip

You must explain your argument.

I never said sola scriptura was possible before the canon was decided.

Sola verbum dei is the only possible position UNTIL the canon is decided, then sola verbum dei becomes sola scriptura.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 11:43:51 AM
Those verses do NOT justify Sola Scriptura. They only establish the importance of Scripture, which we agree with.

Just looking through the various translations, including Greek, I find it interesting how some have capitalized Scripture and others haven't. So are they equaling scriptural authority with God's authority now? Does capitalizing the word give the idea more authority than the verse implies?

Read this verse again and answer if you believe Paul was equaling scripture authority with God's authority:

 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." (Gal 3:8 NKJ)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: xariskai on August 11, 2011, 11:45:07 AM
Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet.snip

You must explain your argument.

I never said sola scriptura was possible before the canon was decided.

Sola verbum dei is the only possible position UNTIL the canon is decided, then sola verbum dei becomes sola scriptura.
Where does scripture say the canon is decided?

Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 11:46:28 AM
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.
Your assumption seems to be "obey God" = sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT), and that unless one ONLY obeys a written text one is disobeying God (correct me if I'm wrong). snip

Prove that argument first, then I'll address the rest.

Go through a stop sign, and explain your position to the judge, that the sign is only written text, that disobeying it was not disobeying the law.

Lets us know if the judge agrees, that disobeying the written command was not disobeying the law.


Are you saying one must only obey a written text or aren't you?

Are you saying you don't have to obey a stop sign to obey the law?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: xariskai on August 11, 2011, 11:47:54 AM
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.
Your assumption seems to be "obey God" = sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT), and that unless one ONLY obeys a written text one is disobeying God (correct me if I'm wrong). snip

Prove that argument first, then I'll address the rest.

Go through a stop sign, and explain your position to the judge, that the sign is only written text, that disobeying it was not disobeying the law.

Lets us know if the judge agrees, that disobeying the written command was not disobeying the law.


Are you saying one must only obey a written text or aren't you?

Are you saying you don't have to obey a stop sign to obey the law?
Are you answering a question with a question?

Your analogy has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 11, 2011, 11:51:32 AM
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.
Your assumption seems to be "obey God" = sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT), and that unless one ONLY obeys a written text one is disobeying God (correct me if I'm wrong). snip

Prove that argument first, then I'll address the rest.

Go through a stop sign, and explain your position to the judge, that the sign is only written text, that disobeying it was not disobeying the law.

Lets us know if the judge agrees, that disobeying the written command was not disobeying the law.


Are you saying one must only obey a written text or aren't you?

Are you saying you don't have to obey a stop sign to obey the law?
What does it mean to obey a stop sign? Do I just stop and never move again as soon as it comes into view? Do I stop even if I'm walking? How do I know when to keep moving? What if the cops are in the middle of a high speed chase, do they have to stop?

You need instructions outside the stop sign itself in order to know what to do with it.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 11:52:04 AM
Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet.snip

You must explain your argument.

I never said sola scriptura was possible before the canon was decided.

Sola verbum dei is the only possible position UNTIL the canon is decided, then sola verbum dei becomes sola scriptura.
Where does scripture say the canon is decided?



It follows from this verse:

 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,
 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
 (Heb 2:3-4 NKJ)

"Was confirmed", past, not present.

It follows only those people could write scripture as God didn't confirm with signs the teaching of anyone after them.

Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: IsmiLiora on August 11, 2011, 11:52:18 AM
And who establishes what the stop sign means?

(You go, guys!)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: primuspilus on August 11, 2011, 11:52:45 AM
Quote
You must explain your argument.

I did...in 2 separate threads, you just choose to ignore it. Probably because you cant find a wikipedia entry to copy and paste to refute what I said.

PP
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 11:53:58 AM
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.
Your assumption seems to be "obey God" = sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT), and that unless one ONLY obeys a written text one is disobeying God (correct me if I'm wrong). snip

Prove that argument first, then I'll address the rest.

Go through a stop sign, and explain your position to the judge, that the sign is only written text, that disobeying it was not disobeying the law.

Lets us know if the judge agrees, that disobeying the written command was not disobeying the law.


Are you saying one must only obey a written text or aren't you?

Are you saying you don't have to obey a stop sign to obey the law?
What does it mean to obey a stop sign? Do I just stop and never move again as soon as it comes into view? Do I stop even if I'm walking? How do I know when to keep moving? What if the cops are in the middle of a high speed chase, do they have to stop?

You need instructions outside the stop sign itself in order to know what to do with it.

When you obey a stop sign, you obey the law...when you do not obey the written word "stop" on a stop sign, you are disobeying the law.

Stops signs only apply to cars. Every adult knows that context.

Same with the Bible.

Tell me how you can disobey the written word, and yet obey God, that seemed to be your opening statement. Explain how that is possible.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: IsmiLiora on August 11, 2011, 11:55:36 AM
Well, everyone interprets the Bible differently (see: 3 million denominations or whatever pasadi's statistic was), so who is actually obeying scripture? How do we know?

Context is necessary.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 11:58:58 AM
Well, everyone interprets the Bible differently (see: 3 million denominations or whatever pasadi's statistic was), so who is actually obeying scripture? How do we know?

Context is necessary.

You didn't answer why you believe I or others like me, have Scripture authority competing with God's authority, when we speak like this:

 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." (Gal 3:8 NKJ)

Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: xariskai on August 11, 2011, 12:00:11 PM
Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet.snip

You must explain your argument.

I never said sola scriptura was possible before the canon was decided.

Sola verbum dei is the only possible position UNTIL the canon is decided, then sola verbum dei becomes sola scriptura.
Where does scripture say the canon is decided?



It follows from this verse:

 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,
 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
 (Heb 2:3-4 NKJ)

"Was confirmed", past, not present.

It follows only those people could write scripture as God didn't confirm with signs the teaching of anyone after them.


I don't see a reference to "deciding the canon" in that verse. Where is it exactly?

Wasn't deciding the canon an extra-biblical decision? (extra-scriptura) Where does it say in scripture which books to include as scripture, and where does it say "that's all folks, no other books will be written after this one?"

Where does scripture say your (inconsistent) "required interim period" before verbum dei becomes verbum scriptura is suddenly over such that no more books or letters may be added to the scriptural corpus?  
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 11, 2011, 12:00:51 PM
Stops signs only apply to cars. Everyone knows that.
How do you know? Did you read ever book of law for yourself to find an explicit statement that "stop signs are only for cars?" Are you sola common sense now?

Scripture does not interpret itself. At the very least you need to know how to read and to reason. We all use outside authorities to some extent.

Tell me how you can disobey the written word, and yet obey God, that seemed to be your opening statement. Explain how that is possible.
Who is arguing that? Not me.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 12:03:37 PM
Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet.snip

You must explain your argument.

I never said sola scriptura was possible before the canon was decided.

Sola verbum dei is the only possible position UNTIL the canon is decided, then sola verbum dei becomes sola scriptura.
Where does scripture say the canon is decided?



It follows from this verse:

 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,
 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
 (Heb 2:3-4 NKJ)

"Was confirmed", past, not present.

It follows only those people could write scripture as God didn't confirm with signs the teaching of anyone after them.


I don't see a reference to "deciding the canon" in that verse. Where is it exactly?

Wasn't deciding the canon an extra-biblical decision? (extra-scriptura) Where does it say in scripture which books to include as scripture, and where does it say "that's all folks, no other books will be written after this one?"

Where does scripture say your (inconsistent) "required interim period" before verbum dei becomes verbum scriptura is suddenly over such that no more books or letters may be added to the scriptural corpus?  

Of course its elementary deduction, just as disobeying the stop sign IS disobeying the law, even though the word "law" isn't written in the sign.

If you can't deduce the obvious, this discussion is over.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 12:05:33 PM
Stops signs only apply to cars. Everyone knows that.
How do you know? Did you read ever book of law for yourself to find an explicit statement that "stop signs are only for cars?" Are you sola common sense now?

Scripture does not interpret itself. At the very least you need to know how to read and to reason. We all use outside authorities to some extent.

Tell me how you can disobey the written word, and yet obey God, that seemed to be your opening statement. Explain how that is possible.
Who is arguing that? Not me.

Isn't there an age requirement to post here?

Only a child wouldn't understand the rules of the road.

I don't argue with children.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 11, 2011, 12:07:12 PM
But we know Paul wrote other letters than just those 15, what makes them noncanonical? If Mark and Luke can write a book, why not Clement? And what of the Apocrypha? Maccabees, Sirach, and Wisdom seem to have been used as much as the OT.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 11, 2011, 12:09:04 PM
Stops signs only apply to cars. Everyone knows that.
How do you know? Did you read ever book of law for yourself to find an explicit statement that "stop signs are only for cars?" Are you sola common sense now?

Scripture does not interpret itself. At the very least you need to know how to read and to reason. We all use outside authorities to some extent.

Tell me how you can disobey the written word, and yet obey God, that seemed to be your opening statement. Explain how that is possible.
Who is arguing that? Not me.

Isn't there an age requirement to post here?

Only a child wouldn't understand the rules of the road.

I don't argue with children.
I understand the rules of the road just fine. Show me where you get your not-explicitly-written idea that stop signs don't apply to pedestrians.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 12:09:56 PM
But we know Paul wrote other letters than just those 15, what makes them noncanonical? If Mark and Luke can write a book, why not Clement? And what of the Apocrypha? Maccabees, Sirach, and Wisdom seem to have been used as much as the OT.

What other letters, where are they so I can read them.

If a writing didn't make it into the canon by  now, after all this time, I would highly doubt it was written the apostle. That doesn't seem possible given how these were distributed in the early church.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: primuspilus on August 11, 2011, 12:11:23 PM
Quote
If you can't deduce the obvious, this discussion is over

Exactly why Im done with you. You refuse to deduce the obvious when examples are clearly provided.

You accept the canon yet deny the authority of those WHO PUT THE CANON TOGETHER.
You refuse to accept the traditions yet accept the canon that was put together BY the traditions.

Your arguments are nothing more than an overly worded version of 1+1=75.

Your whole argument is simply irrational hyper-ractionism with NO intellectual or historical basis, and rehashing of defeated "proofs" of your position that have been defeated multiple times not only on this forum, but also over the last 400 years by people of multiple diciplines.

PP

P.S. By the way, if you actually read Paul instead of Wikipedia you'd know that Paul talks about at least 3 letters to the Corinthians and his letter to the Laodicians.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 12:11:55 PM
Stops signs only apply to cars. Everyone knows that.
How do you know? Did you read ever book of law for yourself to find an explicit statement that "stop signs are only for cars?" Are you sola common sense now?

Scripture does not interpret itself. At the very least you need to know how to read and to reason. We all use outside authorities to some extent.

Tell me how you can disobey the written word, and yet obey God, that seemed to be your opening statement. Explain how that is possible.
Who is arguing that? Not me.

Isn't there an age requirement to post here?

Only a child wouldn't understand the rules of the road.

I don't argue with children.
I understand the rules of the road just fine. Show me where you get your not-explicitly-written idea that stop signs don't apply to pedestrians.

Its in the rules of the road, so evidently you don't know them.

Pedestrians must stop at all intersections, whether there is a sign or not, and proceed only when it is safe.

When you apply for a driver's license, you are not applying for a pedestrian license.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 12:14:21 PM
Quote
If you can't deduce the obvious, this discussion is over

Exactly why Im done with you. You refuse to deduce the obvious when examples are clearly provided.

You accept the canon yet deny the authority of those WHO PUT THE CANON TOGETHER.
You refuse to accept the traditions yet accept the canon that was put together BY the traditions.

Your arguments are nothing more than an overly worded version of 1+1=75.

Your whole argument is simply irrational hyper-ractionism with NO intellectual or historical basis, and rehashing of defeated "proofs" of your position that have been defeated multiple times not only on this forum, but also over the last 400 years by people of multiple diciplines.

PP

P.S. By the way, if you actually read Paul instead of Wikipedia you'd know that Paul talks about at least 3 letters to the Corinthians and his letter to the Laodicians.

sorry you feel that way. goodbye.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 11, 2011, 12:20:59 PM
I've started on a reply, not finfished yet, actually not even finished commenting on the first three veres, but will hopefully follow through with this.

Long story short - they put the letter above the spirit and ignored the two greatest commandments and focused on the externals ignoring the heart - that is what Christ is condemning here. That and some of the things that they "did" according to the references in the NT is that they failed to recognize the fulfillment of the prophecies that they taught, rejected the chief cornerstone, and plotted to and had Christ crucified -  these are also some of the things we are to "not do according to their works".

Anyway has nothing to do with sola scriptura, I actually intend on not even mentioning the doctrine, but to just give comments and references with my aim to simply "call it what it is" without getting too caught up in "what it is not" (can I even do that and still be Orthodox?  ???).


Christ details what He rejects about the Pharisees and Scribes, BOTH their hypocrisy, and a bunch of their extra biblical traditions.

 Any discussion of the spirit of the law is tangential to Christ's purpose, which is what both Mr. Wooten and I refer to.

Such a discussion is irrelevant to sola scriptura, but might be just fine in Sunday School.


From reading the text, I do not even think it is apparent that Christ rejects the Pharisaic traditions. On the contrary, he tells his followers to

A) do what the Pharisees teach them to do.
B) provides a justification for their authority.

Then, he says not to do what they do; but what they do, according to Jesus, is practice hypocrisy. In other words they don't do what they tell others to do.

Given all that, I frankly don't see how the most basic reading of the text wouldn't be

1) Obey the Pharisees, since
2) the Pharisees have the authority to bind burdens. However, since
3) the Pharisees do not lift the burdens themselves that they bind on others, i.e. they are hypocrites who do not practice what they preach,
3) (a) follow their instructions and (b) do not emulate their behavior.
[(a) and (b) are essentially synonymous, since by following the Pharisees' example, one would not be following their instructions.]

In other words, authority is not necessarily "personal". Avoid the easy-to-make mistake of thinking that because someone exercises God-given authority, their life is automatically pure and worthy of emulation. Authorities are not necessarily "better" than others. Their authority is delegated to them by God and is not intrinsic to them as a person, nor is it given to them based on merit, but by grace.

This fits with Christ's criticism in this passage of the Pharisees self-exaltation, including their self-appropriation of titles (as if they "deserved" them). It also fits with other saying of Christ, such as his discussion with Pilate about the nature and source of Pilate's authority.

Nowhere in this passage do I see condemnation of extra-biblical traditions, or endorsement of sola scriptura.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 11, 2011, 12:33:40 PM
Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet.snip

You must explain your argument.

I never said sola scriptura was possible before the canon was decided.

Sola verbum dei is the only possible position UNTIL the canon is decided, then sola verbum dei becomes sola scriptura.

LOL. where in the scriptures does it say that? And nevermind the canon was decided by Orthodox bishops.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theistgal on August 11, 2011, 12:49:35 PM
Quote
If you can't deduce the obvious, this discussion is over

Exactly why Im done with you. You refuse to deduce the obvious when examples are clearly provided.

You accept the canon yet deny the authority of those WHO PUT THE CANON TOGETHER.
You refuse to accept the traditions yet accept the canon that was put together BY the traditions.

Your arguments are nothing more than an overly worded version of 1+1=75.

Your whole argument is simply irrational hyper-ractionism with NO intellectual or historical basis, and rehashing of defeated "proofs" of your position that have been defeated multiple times not only on this forum, but also over the last 400 years by people of multiple diciplines.

PP

P.S. By the way, if you actually read Paul instead of Wikipedia you'd know that Paul talks about at least 3 letters to the Corinthians and his letter to the Laodicians.

sorry you feel that way. goodbye.

I seriously doubt it! ;)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: primuspilus on August 11, 2011, 12:51:47 PM
Quote
I seriously doubt it!

You're not the only one who doubts it  :laugh:

PP
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Andrew Crook on August 11, 2011, 12:55:07 PM
So I keep reading through all of these posts.  Alfred, I respect your position that Holy Tradition must agree with Scripture and that it is counter-productive to argue an "only scripture" viewpoint.  Even though I will never understand how sola scriptura is not the same as solo scriptura?  The mechanics of Latin grammar must leave "solo" ending in an A to produce "sola".   :)

  What the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church believes is here for all to see.  I think it would be more productive for you to show us where what the Orthodox churches teach is not in alignment with Scripture?  I'm all for scripture but as has been posted before, Scripture is not self-explanatory.  Many people can look at the same passages and come to entirely different meanings.  So you know what they say everyone has an opinion, just like everyone has a belly button.   :D

Besides, we Orthodox Christians have been around since the time of Christ.  We trace our lineage to the Apostles, and those who knew him personally -- not everyone can make that claim.  Since then the Protestants have subtracted whatever they didn't like, and the Roman Catholics have added plenty of things in their ever yearning process to "develop" doctrine which should never change.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 12:55:53 PM
I've started on a reply, not finfished yet, actually not even finished commenting on the first three veres, but will hopefully follow through with this.

Long story short - they put the letter above the spirit and ignored the two greatest commandments and focused on the externals ignoring the heart - that is what Christ is condemning here. That and some of the things that they "did" according to the references in the NT is that they failed to recognize the fulfillment of the prophecies that they taught, rejected the chief cornerstone, and plotted to and had Christ crucified -  these are also some of the things we are to "not do according to their works".

Anyway has nothing to do with sola scriptura, I actually intend on not even mentioning the doctrine, but to just give comments and references with my aim to simply "call it what it is" without getting too caught up in "what it is not" (can I even do that and still be Orthodox?  ???).


Christ details what He rejects about the Pharisees and Scribes, BOTH their hypocrisy, and a bunch of their extra biblical traditions.

 Any discussion of the spirit of the law is tangential to Christ's purpose, which is what both Mr. Wooten and I refer to.

Such a discussion is irrelevant to sola scriptura, but might be just fine in Sunday School.


From reading the text, I do not even think it is apparent that Christ rejects the Pharisaic traditions. On the contrary, he tells his followers to

A) do what the Pharisees teach them to do. snip

on the contrary, I listed the reason why it is apparent:

So what precisely did Christ mean by πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν “all therefore whatever if-ever” they bid? The same as πάντα ὅσα ἐὰν  “all whatever if-ever” in Mat 21:22  
"And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Mat 21:22 NKJ)

Whatever you ask according to God’s Law, believing you will receive. If you should ask for money, power, sex, or anything against the Law of God, you certainly will NOT receive that from God.

Same with those who sat and taught the Word of God, whatsoever they properly fetched from the Law, that we are to obey, NOT their unscriptural extra-biblical traditions.


Will you respond to my argument, or is your purpose just to state what you believe, which requires no response from me.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 12:58:22 PM
Quote
If you can't deduce the obvious, this discussion is over

Exactly why Im done with you. You refuse to deduce the obvious when examples are clearly provided.

You accept the canon yet deny the authority of those WHO PUT THE CANON TOGETHER.
You refuse to accept the traditions yet accept the canon that was put together BY the traditions.

Your arguments are nothing more than an overly worded version of 1+1=75.

Your whole argument is simply irrational hyper-ractionism with NO intellectual or historical basis, and rehashing of defeated "proofs" of your position that have been defeated multiple times not only on this forum, but also over the last 400 years by people of multiple diciplines.

PP

P.S. By the way, if you actually read Paul instead of Wikipedia you'd know that Paul talks about at least 3 letters to the Corinthians and his letter to the Laodicians.

sorry you feel that way. goodbye.

I seriously doubt it! ;)

You mean he lied, he's not done with me?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 11, 2011, 01:00:31 PM
Our Lord Jesus taught all must obey the Word of God regardless how hypocritical its teachers are. We must not follow those who “say and do not do”---“we are to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That is the definition of sola scriptura.
That definition works, though, only if we can establish that God speaks only through Scripture, which you have never done convincingly.

I never tried, it would be wrong. God speaks through His servants, and that ends up being written down. So the question to be answered, are there servants of God through whom He speaks today. Many cults say yes, and both Catholic and Orthodox (evidently) believe the word of God is in their “living tradition”, but that isn’t what the apostles taught:

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

Jude’s words convince me, why don’t they convince you?

Actually, your words show a misunderstanding of the Orthodox faith. We agree that the faith was once for all delivered to the saints by the Apostles and that nothing can be added to that faith. We recognize that the Holy Spirit is constantly guiding the Church into a deeper understanding of that faith once for all delivered, and that this perpetual guidance is manifest in what we call Tradition, but we don't presume to add anything new to this faith once for all delivered. You, however, must show that everything in this faith once for all delivered was written down and compiled into the Bible. This you have not yet done.

Author David Wooten contradicts this claiming Christ commands obedience to Jewish extra-biblical traditions in Matthew 23:1ff!

BUT if he really believed that he would list the precise Jewish Traditions Christians today must obey.

As David did not do that, it’s clear he doesn’t believe his own interpretation.
Therefore why should we?

Are you really qualified to know why Mr. Wooten said or did not say something? Do you know his mind that well? I'd like to know how you so mastered the art of telepathy if you do.

Evidently Mr. Wooten's argument and my counter isn't clear to you---if it were you would state precisely how I misunderstood his argument.
You don't know MY mind well enough to know what I would or would not do, so don't presume to say such things about me. Now, if you cannot know MY mind, how much less can you presume to know anybody else's?

I’ll end this here and give you time to reread carefully what we both said, and then either correct my misunderstanding, or your  misunderstanding.

Of course I don’t read minds, so there is no sense continuing until you reread the text and be certain of the issues.

I am quite certain of the issues, and I am correcting your misunderstandings. Now, will you accept this correction, or will you ignore it?


Reading comprehension is taught in school.

Not mind reading.

I've repeatedly explained the sola scriptura position to you, but can't seem to communicate it. I'll try again.

I do not believe in solo scriptura, that everything I believe must be explicitly taught in scripture.

I believe in sola scriptura, which is the Bible alone is the final (supreme) authority. I do not have to show everything I believe is  in scripture, I only have to show its not in conflict with scripture, and if I want it to be a “dogma of the faith,” that scripture explicitly teaches it.
And THIS is where you actually DO teach solo scriptura.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 01:03:21 PM
Our Lord Jesus taught all must obey the Word of God regardless how hypocritical its teachers are. We must not follow those who “say and do not do”---“we are to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That is the definition of sola scriptura.
That definition works, though, only if we can establish that God speaks only through Scripture, which you have never done convincingly.

I never tried, it would be wrong. God speaks through His servants, and that ends up being written down. So the question to be answered, are there servants of God through whom He speaks today. Many cults say yes, and both Catholic and Orthodox (evidently) believe the word of God is in their “living tradition”, but that isn’t what the apostles taught:

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

Jude’s words convince me, why don’t they convince you?

Actually, your words show a misunderstanding of the Orthodox faith. We agree that the faith was once for all delivered to the saints by the Apostles and that nothing can be added to that faith. We recognize that the Holy Spirit is constantly guiding the Church into a deeper understanding of that faith once for all delivered, and that this perpetual guidance is manifest in what we call Tradition, but we don't presume to add anything new to this faith once for all delivered. You, however, must show that everything in this faith once for all delivered was written down and compiled into the Bible. This you have not yet done.

Author David Wooten contradicts this claiming Christ commands obedience to Jewish extra-biblical traditions in Matthew 23:1ff!

BUT if he really believed that he would list the precise Jewish Traditions Christians today must obey.

As David did not do that, it’s clear he doesn’t believe his own interpretation.
Therefore why should we?

Are you really qualified to know why Mr. Wooten said or did not say something? Do you know his mind that well? I'd like to know how you so mastered the art of telepathy if you do.

Evidently Mr. Wooten's argument and my counter isn't clear to you---if it were you would state precisely how I misunderstood his argument.
You don't know MY mind well enough to know what I would or would not do, so don't presume to say such things about me. Now, if you cannot know MY mind, how much less can you presume to know anybody else's?

I’ll end this here and give you time to reread carefully what we both said, and then either correct my misunderstanding, or your  misunderstanding.

Of course I don’t read minds, so there is no sense continuing until you reread the text and be certain of the issues.

I am quite certain of the issues, and I am correcting your misunderstandings. Now, will you accept this correction, or will you ignore it?


Reading comprehension is taught in school.

Not mind reading.

I've repeatedly explained the sola scriptura position to you, but can't seem to communicate it. I'll try again.

I do not believe in solo scriptura, that everything I believe must be explicitly taught in scripture.

I believe in sola scriptura, which is the Bible alone is the final (supreme) authority. I do not have to show everything I believe is  in scripture, I only have to show its not in conflict with scripture, and if I want it to be a “dogma of the faith,” that scripture explicitly teaches it.
And THIS is where you actually DO teach solo scriptura.

Again I failed to communicate.

It must be explicit IF I want to consider the teaching "a must for every Christian."

Those teachings I must deduce from scripture, can't be considered "rule of the faith," as they aren't expressly taught.

They are deduced.

I can believe in quantum mechanics etc., which isn't in scripture, but can't make those "a rule of the Christian faith" because they aren't expressly taught in scripture.

Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: primuspilus on August 11, 2011, 01:04:52 PM
Just to clarify theistgal, as I predicted another reactionary response from someone I was not speaking with, I was speaking to you  :police:

PP
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 01:07:49 PM
Quote
I seriously doubt it!

You're not the only one who doubts it  :laugh:

PP

How can you doubt your own words?

Exactly why Im done with you. You refuse to deduce the obvious when examples are clearly provided.



Are you well?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: primuspilus on August 11, 2011, 01:10:29 PM
*sigh* last time I checked you were not a forum thread but a person. Cant read a simple statement, yet you're right on the money with scripture huh? Good luck Champ :)

PP
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 11, 2011, 01:24:11 PM
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.
Your assumption seems to be "obey God" = sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT), and that unless one ONLY obeys a written text one is disobeying God (correct me if I'm wrong). snip

Prove that argument first, then I'll address the rest.
Speaking now as a moderator, I must say that your attempts to dodge criticism of your point of view by engaging in such attempts to require others to prove their arguments before you will engage them is getting very trying of our patience. Please make an effort to engage ALL questions and challenges that force you to defend your arguments, not just those softballs you can hit out of the park. Otherwise, you're just using this forum as your personal soap box, which is not why this forum exists.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 11, 2011, 01:25:33 PM
Stops signs only apply to cars. Everyone knows that.
How do you know? Did you read ever book of law for yourself to find an explicit statement that "stop signs are only for cars?" Are you sola common sense now?

Scripture does not interpret itself. At the very least you need to know how to read and to reason. We all use outside authorities to some extent.

Tell me how you can disobey the written word, and yet obey God, that seemed to be your opening statement. Explain how that is possible.
Who is arguing that? Not me.

Isn't there an age requirement to post here?

Only a child wouldn't understand the rules of the road.

I don't argue with children.
Any more ad hominems like this, Alfred, and you will be placed back on Warned status.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: xariskai on August 11, 2011, 01:52:18 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/zvbYV.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/jUk6c.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/wD3ne.jpg)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: biro on August 11, 2011, 02:00:46 PM
Nice car!   :)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 02:01:27 PM
Stops signs only apply to cars. Everyone knows that.
How do you know? Did you read ever book of law for yourself to find an explicit statement that "stop signs are only for cars?" Are you sola common sense now?

Scripture does not interpret itself. At the very least you need to know how to read and to reason. We all use outside authorities to some extent.

Tell me how you can disobey the written word, and yet obey God, that seemed to be your opening statement. Explain how that is possible.
Who is arguing that? Not me.

That wasn't ad hominem, it was a question.

But i'll apologize anyway.



Isn't there an age requirement to post here?

Only a child wouldn't understand the rules of the road.

I don't argue with children.
Any more ad hominems like this, Alfred, and you will be placed back on Warned status.

A question isn't a statement, but I'll apologize anyway.

I'm sorry for asking that question.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 02:04:52 PM
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.
Your assumption seems to be "obey God" = sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT), and that unless one ONLY obeys a written text one is disobeying God (correct me if I'm wrong). snip

Prove that argument first, then I'll address the rest.
Speaking now as a moderator, I must say that your attempts to dodge criticism of your point of view by engaging in such attempts to require others to prove their arguments before you will engage them is getting very trying of our patience. Please make an effort to engage ALL questions and challenges that force you to defend your arguments, not just those softballs you can hit out of the park. Otherwise, you're just using this forum as your personal soap box, which is not why this forum exists.

His argument rested upon what I didn't say, it needed to be set straight before treating the rest.

I've learned not to bury points beneath other points.

If you dont' want me here, just say so.

i don't like being talked at, I want conversation.

If you don't, just say so.

Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Thankful on August 11, 2011, 02:38:19 PM
Alfred, when you come to a Stop sign in your vehicle you stop.  And then you go.  Why do you go?  Who told you you could go?  The sign says Stop.  Shouldn't you stay there?  It says Stop, not Go.

You go, after stopping, because you took a class in which the teacher told you this is what the stop sign means.  And you read something other than the Stop sign (the rules of the road book that taught you that this is what the Stop sign means).  And your parents confirmed that you go after you make a full stop because that's what they'd learned, too, and they passed that along to you.  All things work together to interpret the sign for you.  If you ony read the Stop sign and the Stop sign alone (and based your actions upon what it's saying to you), you would have to stop and stay stopped.   Instead, you know -- because you learned it from the Road Sign Tradition -- that you can step on the gas again after coming to a full stop.

This is Tradition and Scripture.  Scripture certainly gives us the "rules of the road" -- but since just reading them by themselves can tell different people different things, the Church has provided interpretation for us (Tradition).  

Isn't God good?  
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 02:47:40 PM
Alfred, when you come to a Stop sign in your vehicle you stop.  And then you go.  Why do you go?  Who told you you could go?  The sign says Stop.  Shouldn't you stay there?  It says Stop, not Go.

You go, after stopping, because you took a class in which the teacher told you this is what the stop sign means.  And you read something other than the Stop sign (the rules of the road book that taught you that this is what the Stop sign means).  And your parents confirmed that you go after you make a full stop because that's what they'd learned, too, and they passed that along to you.  All things work together to interpret the sign for you.  If you ony read the Stop sign and the Stop sign alone (and based your actions upon what it's saying to you), you would have to stop and stay stopped.   Instead, you know -- because you learned it from the Road Sign Tradition -- that you can step on the gas again after coming to a full stop.

This is Tradition and Scripture.  Scripture certainly gives us the "rules of the road" -- but since just reading them by themselves can tell different people different things, the Church has provided interpretation for us (Tradition).  

Isn't God good?  

You seem to be arguing against solo scriptura, if you search this thread, I've repeatedly stated I hold sola scriptura as true.

God put teachers in the church, of course I heed them, they are an authority. Solo scriptura would not do this, sola scriptura will.

What we require of teachers, is they never contradict scripture.

As long as they teach consistent with it, then they are teachers sent by God and we heed them.

But ONLY scripture is the Supreme Authority being it is the Word of God---The Supreme Being, what teachers teach, is of less authority.

ps: Your analogy is flawed, the context of the experience, common sense, shows the command to stop, is just that, stop. Not "remain," there are other rules against impeding traffic and for pulling off the road if you will remain stopped. So the rules of the road, entire, with rules interpreting the rules, and the context of reality with a little common sense, says "go" after one "stops."

Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: ialmisry on August 11, 2011, 03:35:27 PM
I see you are back Alfred:
(http://www.active-noise-reduction.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg)
Alfred, when you come to a Stop sign in your vehicle you stop.  And then you go.  Why do you go?  Who told you you could go?  The sign says Stop.  Shouldn't you stay there?  It says Stop, not Go.

You go, after stopping, because you took a class in which the teacher told you this is what the stop sign means.  And you read something other than the Stop sign (the rules of the road book that taught you that this is what the Stop sign means).  And your parents confirmed that you go after you make a full stop because that's what they'd learned, too, and they passed that along to you.  All things work together to interpret the sign for you.  If you ony read the Stop sign and the Stop sign alone (and based your actions upon what it's saying to you), you would have to stop and stay stopped.   Instead, you know -- because you learned it from the Road Sign Tradition -- that you can step on the gas again after coming to a full stop.

This is Tradition and Scripture.  Scripture certainly gives us the "rules of the road" -- but since just reading them by themselves can tell different people different things, the Church has provided interpretation for us (Tradition).  

Isn't God good?  

You seem to be arguing against solo scriptura, if you search this thread, I've repeatedly stated I hold sola scriptura as true.

God put teachers in the church, of course I heed them, they are an authority. Solo scriptura would not do this, sola scriptura will.

What we require of teachers, is they never contradict scripture.

As long as they teach consistent with it, then they are teachers sent by God and we heed them.

But ONLY scripture is the Supreme Authority being it is the Word of God---The Supreme Being, what teachers teach, is of less authority.

ps: Your analogy is flawed, the context of the experience, common sense, shows the command to stop, is just that, stop. Not "remain,"
Most buttons I push that are labeled "stop" don't restart the machine.  your mileage must vary.

there are other rules against impeding traffic and for pulling off the road if you will remain stopped. So the rules of the road, entire, with rules interpreting the rules, and the context of reality with a little common sense, says "go" after one "stops."
well you just go after that stop sign.
(http://us.cdn4.123rf.com/168nwm/emadrazo/emadrazo0803/emadrazo080300001/2644982-railway-stop-sign-with-train-movement-blur-off-to-the-right.jpg)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: xariskai on August 11, 2011, 03:39:44 PM
Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet.snip

You must explain your argument.

I never said sola scriptura was possible before the canon was decided.

Sola verbum dei is the only possible position UNTIL the canon is decided, then sola verbum dei becomes sola scriptura.
Where does scripture say the canon is decided?



It follows from this verse:

 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,
 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
 (Heb 2:3-4 NKJ)

"Was confirmed", past, not present.

It follows only those people could write scripture as God didn't confirm with signs the teaching of anyone after them.


I don't see a reference to "deciding the canon" in that verse. Where is it exactly?

Wasn't deciding the canon an extra-biblical decision? (extra-scriptura) Where does it say in scripture which books to include as scripture, and where does it say "that's all folks, no other books will be written after this one?"

Where does scripture say your (inconsistent) "required interim period" before verbum dei becomes verbum scriptura is suddenly over such that no more books or letters may be added to the scriptural corpus?  

I don't see any reason you have "Dodged" the questions in black' if there is a reason I'd like to know what it is.

Now suddenly you are not insisting the disciples followed Christ's supposed ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT rule, but that after receiving that supposed rule there was an additional subsequent period where they didn't follow ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT (sola scriptura) but rather followed an additional verbum dei which was not predicted or commanded in previous WRITTEN TEXT. And you do not see (or refuse to admit) the irony!

Also you have spoken of a verbum dei "until the canon was decided" but have failed to explain how one gets a canon ala sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT) since there is no scriptural list of a canon, or if you allow that you must get the canon extra-biblically how this is not a violation of Christ's alleged commandment to his disciples to use ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT, which is not what Christ or scripture ever said when it commanded only the word of God rather than the traditions of men be followed.

Pleas also answer the question if we are to follow ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT:  How on earth do *YOU* (autonomously, as one "radically individualized," WITHOUT APPEALING TO ANY CHURCH) conclude the canon is CLOSED???? Did God tell you this directly? Or did you read in a written text THE CANON WILL BE NOW CLOSED AND HERE IS WHAT IS IN IT? And if not, are you disobeying the ONLY WRITTEN TEXT RULE and teaching an extra-biblical assumption to others that we should suppose the canon was or ever will be closed? Are you really following your ONLY THE WRITTEN TEXT philosophy, or are you being hypocritical in "sliding the canon under the door of your assumptions?" In fact you are obviously affirming an extra-biblical teaching unless you can show us a biblical passage that closes and defines the parameters of the canon. Luther supposed a different canon than is in our NT canon, and modern scholars speak today of a "canon within the canon" -meaning some books assumed canonical in the past should not have been. Bart Ehrman wants to add numerous Gnostic books which were considered scripture. Many early church fathers had different ideas about what books were canonical. Where is your scriptural proof as to who was right, since doctrines can only be based on only scripture in your view?

2 Thess 2:15 "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." NOT ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT! Such a position is unbiblical, and if it *was* biblical one would have to conclude that it was disobeyed continually from the time Christ allegedly commanded it. We would probably also have to conclude that there is no written text Christ approved other than the OT and specific writings authorized by ONLY THAT WRITTEN TEXT, and unfortunately no further writings were authorized by the ONLY WRITTEN TEXTS that existed during the tenure of Christ's earthly mission.



Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Asteriktos on August 11, 2011, 03:50:06 PM
I don't know what's going on in this thread. I'm not reading it, sorry. However, as I scrolled through I saw 1) a founder, and 2) dodgeball movie. I don't know why or for what reason one of the best TV shows ever and one of the best movies of the last decade were mentioned in a post, but good job. I salute you!  :)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 11, 2011, 04:09:40 PM
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.
Your assumption seems to be "obey God" = sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT), and that unless one ONLY obeys a written text one is disobeying God (correct me if I'm wrong). snip

Prove that argument first, then I'll address the rest.
Speaking now as a moderator, I must say that your attempts to dodge criticism of your point of view by engaging in such attempts to require others to prove their arguments before you will engage them is getting very trying of our patience. Please make an effort to engage ALL questions and challenges that force you to defend your arguments, not just those softballs you can hit out of the park. Otherwise, you're just using this forum as your personal soap box, which is not why this forum exists.

His argument rested upon what I didn't say, it needed to be set straight before treating the rest.

I've learned not to bury points beneath other points.

If you dont' want me here, just say so.

i don't like being talked at, I want conversation.

If you don't, just say so.
Now that you bring this up, let me speak to you frankly, as a moderator. I didn't respond solely to the tactic you employed with xariskai. To me, your tactic was merely a demonstration of a much bigger problem this forum has with how you engage us in general. Regardless of what you say about how you're here to enjoy good, intelligent conversation, your behavior on this forum betrays the fact that you are clearly here to pontificate. This in itself is not a problem; however, you have also shown an equally clear pattern of refusal to engage any questions or challenges that require you to defend or modify your point of view.

For instance, in my recent attempt to challenge you to show us where Paul uses the word "alone" in 2 Timothy 3:15-17, you first asserted that the concept of "Scripture alone" could be deduced from the text, which was not an answer to my challenge that you find the exact word "alone" written in the text. Then you dodged my challenge by arguing that Paul meant Scripture alone because the Scriptures are unique among literature and challenged me to prove you wrong. In doing so, you accused me of asserting that the Scriptures are NOT unique among literature, a claim I never made, and refused to engage my challenge until I could prove the argument you put into my mouth.

You have employed similar avoidance tactics with FrGiryus, whose repeated request that you explain your exegetical principles you never answered. Instead, you challenged FrGiryus to put his principles into action by interpreting a particular passage of scripture, you called his insistent questioning and statements on your resistance a series of ad hominem attacks, and you ultimately never answered his question.

You pose your personal experiences and your self-proclaimed direct revelations from God as the foundation of your authority to preach to us, thus making the subject of your authority central to any discussion of your interpretations of Scripture, yet you accuse us of trying to divert the discussion with ad hominem tactics and tell us that you don't want to talk about yourself when we question the authority you claim for yourself. When informed of how you can rephrase your words so others can understand you, you make no effort to accommodate us. You dodge questions by alleging that they're full of logical fallacies. I could go on, but I think that's sufficient to make my case that you simply refuse to engage us in any genuine two-way dialogue.

Alfred, this forum does not exist to be your personal soap box. This is a place for discussion. For discussion to work properly, you must be willing to actively engage points of view that disagree with your own, to defend your points of view with arguments crafted to directly address criticisms, and to admit that opposing points of view may be correct and that you may be wrong. Therefore, if you wish to continue participating in our discussion community, I charge you to start engaging opposing points of view and criticisms of your arguments in the way I have so described. Continued refusal to do so will necessitate increasing disciplinary action against you for thread commandeering, to include formal warnings, post moderation, muting, or even banning. I hope I'm making myself clear.

If you wish to ask questions or voice your disagreement with this warning, please do so via private message. I will not condone argument with the above directive here on this thread.


- PeterTheAleut
Orthodox-Protestant Discussion Moderator
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 11, 2011, 04:33:36 PM
So what precisely did Christ mean by πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν “all therefore whatever if-ever” they bid? The same as πάντα ὅσα ἐὰν  “all whatever if-ever” in Mat 21:22  
"And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Mat 21:22 NKJ)

You can't define πάντα όσα εάν in the text we are discussing in this way. You are assuming your interpretation of the meaning of the entire phrase πάντα όσα εάν αιτησητε εν τη προσευχη ('whatsoever you ask in prayer') in Matthew 21:22 is inherent in πάντα όσα εάν itself, and then turning it into a general principle ('whatever' in the Bible means 'Godly things'), with zero justification, in order to apply it to our discussion text. This is ridiculous. What sort of exegetical rule are you following?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 11, 2011, 04:40:13 PM
Our Lord Jesus taught all must obey the Word of God regardless how hypocritical its teachers are. We must not follow those who “say and do not do”---“we are to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That is the definition of sola scriptura.
That definition works, though, only if we can establish that God speaks only through Scripture, which you have never done convincingly.

I never tried, it would be wrong. God speaks through His servants, and that ends up being written down. So the question to be answered, are there servants of God through whom He speaks today. Many cults say yes, and both Catholic and Orthodox (evidently) believe the word of God is in their “living tradition”, but that isn’t what the apostles taught:

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jud 1:3 NKJ)

Jude’s words convince me, why don’t they convince you?

Actually, your words show a misunderstanding of the Orthodox faith. We agree that the faith was once for all delivered to the saints by the Apostles and that nothing can be added to that faith. We recognize that the Holy Spirit is constantly guiding the Church into a deeper understanding of that faith once for all delivered, and that this perpetual guidance is manifest in what we call Tradition, but we don't presume to add anything new to this faith once for all delivered. You, however, must show that everything in this faith once for all delivered was written down and compiled into the Bible. This you have not yet done.

Author David Wooten contradicts this claiming Christ commands obedience to Jewish extra-biblical traditions in Matthew 23:1ff!

BUT if he really believed that he would list the precise Jewish Traditions Christians today must obey.

As David did not do that, it’s clear he doesn’t believe his own interpretation.
Therefore why should we?

Are you really qualified to know why Mr. Wooten said or did not say something? Do you know his mind that well? I'd like to know how you so mastered the art of telepathy if you do.

Evidently Mr. Wooten's argument and my counter isn't clear to you---if it were you would state precisely how I misunderstood his argument.
You don't know MY mind well enough to know what I would or would not do, so don't presume to say such things about me. Now, if you cannot know MY mind, how much less can you presume to know anybody else's?

I’ll end this here and give you time to reread carefully what we both said, and then either correct my misunderstanding, or your  misunderstanding.

Of course I don’t read minds, so there is no sense continuing until you reread the text and be certain of the issues.

I am quite certain of the issues, and I am correcting your misunderstandings. Now, will you accept this correction, or will you ignore it?


Reading comprehension is taught in school.

Not mind reading.

I've repeatedly explained the sola scriptura position to you, but can't seem to communicate it. I'll try again.

I do not believe in solo scriptura, that everything I believe must be explicitly taught in scripture.

I believe in sola scriptura, which is the Bible alone is the final (supreme) authority. I do not have to show everything I believe is  in scripture, I only have to show its not in conflict with scripture, and if I want it to be a “dogma of the faith,” that scripture explicitly teaches it.
And THIS is where you actually DO teach solo scriptura.

Again I failed to communicate.

It must be explicit IF I want to consider the teaching "a must for every Christian."

Those teachings I must deduce from scripture, can't be considered "rule of the faith," as they aren't expressly taught.

They are deduced.

I can believe in quantum mechanics etc., which isn't in scripture, but can't make those "a rule of the Christian faith" because they aren't expressly taught in scripture.



Is this distinction you make between "expressly taught" and "deduced" expressly taught in Scripture, or deduced therefrom?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 11, 2011, 05:03:11 PM
Again I failed to communicate.

It must be explicit IF I want to consider the teaching "a must for every Christian."

Those teachings I must deduce from scripture, can't be considered "rule of the faith," as they aren't expressly taught.

They are deduced.

I can believe in quantum mechanics etc., which isn't in scripture, but can't make those "a rule of the Christian faith" because they aren't expressly taught in scripture.



Is this distinction you make between "expressly taught" and "deduced" expressly taught in Scripture, or deduced therefrom?
Thanks for pointing that out. According to his own logic, then, Alfred would have to recognize that sola scriptura cannot be considered a "rule of faith" since he must deduce it from Scripture, as it is not expressly taught in Scripture.

I never said the word "alone" is in the verse [2 Timothy 3:15-17], I said it is deducible...
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: scamandrius on August 11, 2011, 05:34:24 PM
One important distinction needs to be made.  You are looking at verbum, logos, word as a what.  The verbum Dei, ho logos Theou, word of God is a who, namely Christ, the second Person of the Trinity.  God does not equal Scripture or any thing.  Scripture is an Icon of the Most High but that in itself does not mean it is equal to it. 

BTW, if you want to use Latin, please use it correctly.  It should be solum Verbum Dei as verbum is neuter. I really hate when people try to use Latin to make themselves look intellectually superior but have not clue 1 as to how to use it correctly.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 11, 2011, 05:58:35 PM
I really hate when people try to use Latin to make themselves look intellectually superior but have not clue 1 as to how to use it correctly.

Have you watched parks and recreation?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 11, 2011, 06:08:20 PM
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!"
 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. (Act 5:27-29 NKJ)

A more elegant statement of “sola verbum dei” cannot be made. As what is indisputably God’s Word today is found in the Scriptures “sola verbum dei” = “sola scriptura”.
Your assumption seems to be "obey God" = sola scriptura (ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT), and that unless one ONLY obeys a written text one is disobeying God (correct me if I'm wrong). snip

Prove that argument first, then I'll address the rest.
Speaking now as a moderator, I must say that your attempts to dodge criticism of your point of view by engaging in such attempts to require others to prove their arguments before you will engage them is getting very trying of our patience. Please make an effort to engage ALL questions and challenges that force you to defend your arguments, not just those softballs you can hit out of the park. Otherwise, you're just using this forum as your personal soap box, which is not why this forum exists.

His argument rested upon what I didn't say, it needed to be set straight before treating the rest.

I've learned not to bury points beneath other points.

If you dont' want me here, just say so.

i don't like being talked at, I want conversation.

If you don't, just say so.
Now that you bring this up, let me speak to you frankly, as a moderator. I didn't respond solely to the tactic you employed with xariskai. To me, your tactic was merely a demonstration of a much bigger problem this forum has with how you engage us in general. Regardless of what you say about how you're here to enjoy good, intelligent conversation, your behavior on this forum betrays the fact that you are clearly here to pontificate. This in itself is not a problem; however, you have also shown an equally clear pattern of refusal to engage any questions or challenges that require you to defend or modify your point of view.

For instance, in my recent attempt to challenge you to show us where Paul uses the word "alone" in 2 Timothy 3:15-17, you first asserted that the concept of "Scripture alone" could be deduced from the text, which was not an answer to my challenge that you find the exact word "alone" written in the text. Then you dodged my challenge by arguing that Paul meant Scripture alone because the Scriptures are unique among literature and challenged me to prove you wrong. In doing so, you accused me of asserting that the Scriptures are NOT unique among literature, a claim I never made, and refused to engage my challenge until I could prove the argument you put into my mouth.

You have employed similar avoidance tactics with FrGiryus, whose repeated request that you explain your exegetical principles you never answered. Instead, you challenged FrGiryus to put his principles into action by interpreting a particular passage of scripture, you called his insistent questioning and statements on your resistance a series of ad hominem attacks, and you ultimately never answered his question.

You pose your personal experiences and your self-proclaimed direct revelations from God as the foundation of your authority to preach to us, thus making the subject of your authority central to any discussion of your interpretations of Scripture, yet you accuse us of trying to divert the discussion with ad hominem tactics and tell us that you don't want to talk about yourself when we question the authority you claim for yourself. When informed of how you can rephrase your words so others can understand you, you make no effort to accommodate us. You dodge questions by alleging that they're full of logical fallacies. I could go on, but I think that's sufficient to make my case that you simply refuse to engage us in any genuine two-way dialogue.

Alfred, this forum does not exist to be your personal soap box. This is a place for discussion. For discussion to work properly, you must be willing to actively engage points of view that disagree with your own, to defend your points of view with arguments crafted to directly address criticisms, and to admit that opposing points of view may be correct and that you may be wrong. Therefore, if you wish to continue participating in our discussion community, I charge you to start engaging opposing points of view and criticisms of your arguments in the way I have so described. Continued refusal to do so will necessitate increasing disciplinary action against you for thread commandeering, to include formal warnings, post moderation, muting, or even banning. I hope I'm making myself clear.

If you wish to ask questions or voice your disagreement with this warning, please do so via private message. I will not condone argument with the above directive here on this thread.


- PeterTheAleut
Orthodox-Protestant Discussion Moderator

You compiled this list of smears in the hopes I'd respond angrily. But I don't, I pray for you.



(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnwarn.gif)
For this display of brazen public contempt for a moderatorial directive, you are now on Warned status for the next 90 days. Any more public comment about moderatorial actions taken against you and the instructions you are to follow, and you will be placed immediately on Post Moderation. Feel free to appeal this decision via private message to Veniamin if you think this wrong.

- PeterTheAleut
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: primuspilus on August 11, 2011, 06:11:45 PM
Quote
You compiled this list of smears in the hopes I'd respond angrily. But I don't, I pray for you.

I doubt that mate. I really wouldn't accuse a moderator of actively trying to antagonize someone.

PP
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theistgal on August 11, 2011, 06:29:52 PM
Just to clarify theistgal, as I predicted another reactionary response from someone I was not speaking with, I was speaking to you  :police:
PP

At this point I've lost track anyway.  ;D
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: genesisone on August 11, 2011, 06:52:22 PM
Just to clarify theistgal, as I predicted another reactionary response from someone I was not speaking with, I was speaking to you  :police:
PP

At this point I've lost track anyway.  ;D
Are you sure there even is a track?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 11, 2011, 08:03:50 PM
But we know Paul wrote other letters than just those 15, what makes them noncanonical? If Mark and Luke can write a book, why not Clement? And what of the Apocrypha? Maccabees, Sirach, and Wisdom seem to have been used as much as the OT.

What other letters, where are they so I can read them.

If a writing didn't make it into the canon by  now, after all this time, I would highly doubt it was written the apostle. That doesn't seem possible given how these were distributed in the early church.
Well, there's:

Quote
The first Epistle to Corinth referenced at 1 Corinthians 5:9
The third Epistle to Corinth called Severe Letter referenced at 2 Corinthians 2:4 and 2 Corinthians 7:8-9
The Corinthian letter to Paul referenced at 1 Corinthians 7:1
The Earlier Epistle to the Ephesians referenced at Ephesians 3:3-4
The Epistle to the Laodiceans referenced at Colossians 4:16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles#Lost_Pauline_Epistles

Also, take a look at the confusion called by some of those spurious epistles in the next section. On so-called 3rd Corinthians:

Quote
In the East, in the Syriac Orthodox Church, Aphrahat (c. 340) treated it as canonical and Ephraem of Syria (d. 373) apparently accepted it as canonical, for he wrote a commentary on it. The Doctrine of Addai includes it, however it was not included in the Syriac Peshitta translation of the Bible (but nor were 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, or Revelation, which are almost universally recognized as canonical, see also Antilegomena). Although part of the Oskan Armenian Bible of 1666, it was in an Appendix to the Zohrab Armenian Bible of 1805 which follows the Vulgate canon, and it is not currently considered part of the Armenian Orthodox New Testament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians


Also you didn't answer my question regarding Clement or the Apocrypha. Also, why not throw in Ignatius and Polycarp, hearers of John, as well since we allow Mark and Luke?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: orthonorm on August 11, 2011, 08:11:06 PM
Proof You are Ineffective:

Post to view ratio. No one except those posting and maybe some of them (could PWN you blind) ain't reading this stuff.

I get better numbers about possibly losing my internet connection at home.

You need to up your game.

I guarantee many more views, if you take on Poppy head to head in a thread.

Huge numbers. You wouldn't be able to find a font larger.

Listen to me. I might a total waste of life, but I know internetz.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theo philosopher on August 11, 2011, 09:18:30 PM
How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

If we follow sola scriptura and the Bible alone contains all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive, then God's knowledge is finite. If we hold that God's knowledge is infinite, including about what aids us in living, then the Bible alone cannot contain all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive.

Certainly any teachings that run contrary to Scripture should be highly suspect if not disregarded. But that is not to say that all teachings must be found explicitly (or even implicitly) within Scripture.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: orthonorm on August 11, 2011, 09:29:27 PM
How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

If we follow sola scriptura and the Bible alone contains all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive, then God's knowledge is finite. If we hold that God's knowledge is infinite, including about what aids us in living, then the Bible alone cannot contain all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive.

Certainly any teachings that run contrary to Scripture should be highly suspect if not disregarded. But that is not to say that all teachings must be found explicitly (or even implicitly) within Scripture.

Your not terribly good at this.

This statement is clearly irrelevant at best. Untrue at worst.

And really there are so many underlying assumptions you all are holding which are empty, you are arguing the two sides of a used coke bottle.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theo philosopher on August 11, 2011, 10:01:46 PM
How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

If we follow sola scriptura and the Bible alone contains all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive, then God's knowledge is finite. If we hold that God's knowledge is infinite, including about what aids us in living, then the Bible alone cannot contain all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive.

Certainly any teachings that run contrary to Scripture should be highly suspect if not disregarded. But that is not to say that all teachings must be found explicitly (or even implicitly) within Scripture.

Your not terribly good at this.

This statement is clearly irrelevant at best. Untrue at worst.

And really there are so many underlying assumptions you all are holding which are empty, you are arguing the two sides of a used coke bottle.

*You're.  ;)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 11, 2011, 11:46:59 PM
How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

If we follow sola scriptura and the Bible alone contains all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive, then God's knowledge is finite. If we hold that God's knowledge is infinite, including about what aids us in living, then the Bible alone cannot contain all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive.

Have to disagree. You're assuming that infinite wisdom cannot fit into a finite number of pages. It can. You're treating knowledge as quantifiable and infinity as a quantity.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 11, 2011, 11:52:48 PM
How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

If we follow sola scriptura and the Bible alone contains all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive, then God's knowledge is finite. If we hold that God's knowledge is infinite, including about what aids us in living, then the Bible alone cannot contain all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive.

Have to disagree. You're assuming that infinite wisdom cannot fit into a finite number of pages. It can. You're treating knowledge as quantifiable and infinity as a quantity.
Indeed! Have you seen a graph of how many times a rubber ball will bounce on the floor before it comes to a complete stop? The ball actually will complete an infinite number of bounces in a short time--that's not an exaggeration.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theo philosopher on August 11, 2011, 11:54:35 PM
How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

If we follow sola scriptura and the Bible alone contains all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive, then God's knowledge is finite. If we hold that God's knowledge is infinite, including about what aids us in living, then the Bible alone cannot contain all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive.

Have to disagree. You're assuming that infinite wisdom cannot fit into a finite number of pages. It can. You're treating knowledge as quantifiable and infinity as a quantity.

Not necessarily. I'm stating that "infinite" is simply "without limit." The Bible, by necessity, is limited.

Perhaps you can explain the "It can" portion of what you said? Or perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough, which is also likely.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that the mind of God cannot be contained within Scripture, though Scripture can still be inspired. That is, revelation took place before Scripture (and Scripture is a record of some of that revelation). So my question is how could that which is finite (Scripture) and that which follows the act of revelation somehow contain all possible revelation?

I guess coming from my background, I'm only looking at sola scriptura as I've seen it practiced and preached. In such a context, we're told that only the Bible provides us with revelation, the Bible is the Word, the Bible is the complete revelation of God, etc. Yet, from the Bible we learn that the complete revelation of God is the Word (Christ), not Scripture. Regardless, I'm having difficulty accepting that something finite (a book) could contain the infinite.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 12, 2011, 12:00:56 AM
I'm having difficulty accepting that something finite [] could contain the infinite.

Then perhaps Christianity isn't the religion for you.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 12, 2011, 12:04:00 AM
How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

If we follow sola scriptura and the Bible alone contains all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive, then God's knowledge is finite. If we hold that God's knowledge is infinite, including about what aids us in living, then the Bible alone cannot contain all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive.

Have to disagree. You're assuming that infinite wisdom cannot fit into a finite number of pages. It can. You're treating knowledge as quantifiable and infinity as a quantity.

Not necessarily. I'm stating that "infinite" is simply "without limit." The Bible, by necessity, is limited.

Perhaps you can explain the "It can" portion of what you said? Or perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough, which is also likely.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that the mind of God cannot be contained within Scripture, though Scripture can still be inspired. That is, revelation took place before Scripture (and Scripture is a record of some of that revelation). So my question is how could that which is finite (Scripture) and that which follows the act of revelation somehow contain all possible revelation?

I guess coming from my background, I'm only looking at sola scriptura as I've seen it practiced and preached. In such a context, we're told that only the Bible provides us with revelation, the Bible is the Word, the Bible is the complete revelation of God, etc. Yet, from the Bible we learn that the complete revelation of God is the Word (Christ), not Scripture. Regardless, I'm having difficulty accepting that something finite (a book) could contain the infinite.
The infinite God took upon Himself a finite body, such that a virgin's womb can be called more spacious than the heavens for containing the infinite God.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theo philosopher on August 12, 2011, 12:04:55 AM
How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

If we follow sola scriptura and the Bible alone contains all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive, then God's knowledge is finite. If we hold that God's knowledge is infinite, including about what aids us in living, then the Bible alone cannot contain all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive.

Have to disagree. You're assuming that infinite wisdom cannot fit into a finite number of pages. It can. You're treating knowledge as quantifiable and infinity as a quantity.
Indeed! Have you seen a graph of how many times a rubber ball will bounce on the floor before it comes to a complete stop? The ball actually will complete an infinite number of bounces in a short time--that's not an exaggeration.

The total time is still a finite number.  ;)

So while it bounces an infinite number of times due to it moving in an infinite series, the total sum is still finite (isn't this Zeno's Paradox? Been a very long time since I've even looked at anything like this).

Regardless, that deals with a progressive infinite series of events. When I use the term "infinite," I'm dealing with that which is beyond limits, which cannot be contained. Sola scriptura would teach that God's wisdom is in fact contained.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 12, 2011, 12:07:15 AM
How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

If we follow sola scriptura and the Bible alone contains all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive, then God's knowledge is finite. If we hold that God's knowledge is infinite, including about what aids us in living, then the Bible alone cannot contain all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive.

Have to disagree. You're assuming that infinite wisdom cannot fit into a finite number of pages. It can. You're treating knowledge as quantifiable and infinity as a quantity.
Indeed! Have you seen a graph of how many times a rubber ball will bounce on the floor before it comes to a complete stop? The ball actually will complete an infinite number of bounces in a short time--that's not an exaggeration.

The total time is still a finite number.  ;)

So while it bounces an infinite number of times due to it moving in an infinite series, the total sum is still finite (isn't this Zeno's Paradox? Been a very long time since I've even looked at anything like this).

Regardless, that deals with a progressive infinite series of events. When I use the term "infinite," I'm dealing with that which is beyond limits, which cannot be contained. Sola scriptura would teach that God's wisdom is in fact contained.

And the Incarnation teaches us that the infinite God is contained. So what's your point?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theo philosopher on August 12, 2011, 12:09:50 AM
How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

If we follow sola scriptura and the Bible alone contains all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive, then God's knowledge is finite. If we hold that God's knowledge is infinite, including about what aids us in living, then the Bible alone cannot contain all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive.

Have to disagree. You're assuming that infinite wisdom cannot fit into a finite number of pages. It can. You're treating knowledge as quantifiable and infinity as a quantity.

Not necessarily. I'm stating that "infinite" is simply "without limit." The Bible, by necessity, is limited.

Perhaps you can explain the "It can" portion of what you said? Or perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough, which is also likely.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that the mind of God cannot be contained within Scripture, though Scripture can still be inspired. That is, revelation took place before Scripture (and Scripture is a record of some of that revelation). So my question is how could that which is finite (Scripture) and that which follows the act of revelation somehow contain all possible revelation?

I guess coming from my background, I'm only looking at sola scriptura as I've seen it practiced and preached. In such a context, we're told that only the Bible provides us with revelation, the Bible is the Word, the Bible is the complete revelation of God, etc. Yet, from the Bible we learn that the complete revelation of God is the Word (Christ), not Scripture. Regardless, I'm having difficulty accepting that something finite (a book) could contain the infinite.
The infinite God took upon Himself a finite body, such that a virgin's womb can be called more spacious than the heavens for containing the infinite God.

I was anticipating that someone would bring that up, but it doesn't work with sola scriptura. With Christ we still have two natures, two wills, etc. God still remained unconfined within the Incarnation. To use the argument you're using, we'd have to argue that God is somehow incarnate within Scripture, which of course begs the question as to what we're to do with the multitude of conflicting translations. When we say that "God is contained" we don't mean that the attributes or essence of God is contained, but that the Person of the Word was contained. To argue that God's entire wisdom or essence was contained is a heresy (and I'm not saying you're making that argument).

Under sola scriptura however, the implication is that God's entire wisdom is contained within the finite. To me, that's quite problematic.

Then again, this could be a bad argument I'm putting forth. It's just something I thought of and wanted to test out. Seeing some of the objections and working through them, while I'm not convinced the argument is incorrect, I am convinced it's weak and that better arguments are probably available. :)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 12, 2011, 12:13:52 AM
How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

If we follow sola scriptura and the Bible alone contains all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive, then God's knowledge is finite. If we hold that God's knowledge is infinite, including about what aids us in living, then the Bible alone cannot contain all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive.

Have to disagree. You're assuming that infinite wisdom cannot fit into a finite number of pages. It can. You're treating knowledge as quantifiable and infinity as a quantity.
Indeed! Have you seen a graph of how many times a rubber ball will bounce on the floor before it comes to a complete stop? The ball actually will complete an infinite number of bounces in a short time--that's not an exaggeration.

The total time is still a finite number.  ;)

So while it bounces an infinite number of times due to it moving in an infinite series, the total sum is still finite (isn't this Zeno's Paradox? Been a very long time since I've even looked at anything like this).

Regardless, that deals with a progressive infinite series of events. When I use the term "infinite," I'm dealing with that which is beyond limits, which cannot be contained. Sola scriptura would teach that God's wisdom is in fact contained.


I think you still need to address my joke, and Peter's comment. Christianity is precisely the idea that the infinite can be contained in the finite.

Frankly, I don't see an immediate problem with the idea that Scripture contains within finite pages all the riches of God's wisdom. I can't see off hand why that would be a problem for Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 12, 2011, 12:18:14 AM
With Christ we still have two natures, two wills, etc. God still remained unconfined within the Incarnation.

I must confess I didn't expect this line of discussion to end in an endorsement of Nestorianism.

Quote
When we say that "God is contained" we don't mean that the attributes or essence of God is contained, but that the Person of the Word was contained.

To the contrary,

Colossians 2:9 (KJV)
For in [Jesus Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theo philosopher on August 12, 2011, 12:21:24 AM
How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

If we follow sola scriptura and the Bible alone contains all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive, then God's knowledge is finite. If we hold that God's knowledge is infinite, including about what aids us in living, then the Bible alone cannot contain all the wisdom of God that we need to know in order to survive.

Have to disagree. You're assuming that infinite wisdom cannot fit into a finite number of pages. It can. You're treating knowledge as quantifiable and infinity as a quantity.
Indeed! Have you seen a graph of how many times a rubber ball will bounce on the floor before it comes to a complete stop? The ball actually will complete an infinite number of bounces in a short time--that's not an exaggeration.

The total time is still a finite number.  ;)

So while it bounces an infinite number of times due to it moving in an infinite series, the total sum is still finite (isn't this Zeno's Paradox? Been a very long time since I've even looked at anything like this).

Regardless, that deals with a progressive infinite series of events. When I use the term "infinite," I'm dealing with that which is beyond limits, which cannot be contained. Sola scriptura would teach that God's wisdom is in fact contained.


I think you still need to address my joke, and Peter's comment. Christianity is precisely the idea that the infinite can be contained in the finite.

Frankly, I don't see an immediate problem with the idea that Scripture contains within finite pages all the riches of God's wisdom. I can't see off hand why that would be a problem for Orthodoxy.

I thought I did address them?

As I stated, it's two different types of containment. For one, the entirety of God wasn't contained in the Incarnation. The Father did not participate in the Incarnation, nor did the Spirit. God's wisdom was not limited in the Incarnation.

But, I do think I'll abandon this argument. In thinking through your objections and Peter's objections I came to a problem with it, namely that the argument implies that God's wisdom is somehow divisible, which is also problematic. That and it seems like I'm drawing an unnecessary and arbitrary line in the sand concerning God's wisdom and revelation.  

Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 12, 2011, 12:22:38 AM
I thought I did address them?

My post came too late. My apologies.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theo philosopher on August 12, 2011, 12:25:00 AM
With Christ we still have two natures, two wills, etc. God still remained unconfined within the Incarnation.

I must confess I didn't expect this line of discussion to end in an endorsement of Nestorianism.

Quote
When we say that "God is contained" we don't mean that the attributes or essence of God is contained, but that the Person of the Word was contained.

To the contrary,

Colossians 2:9 (KJV)
For in [Jesus Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

That's not Nestorian at all! To say that Christ had two wills or two natures isn't Nestorian. That's the traditional teaching.

Likewise, when I say that God wasn't contained in the Incarnation, I'm saying that the Father and Spirit did not participate in the Incarnation.

I fully accept the term Theotokos in that Jesus was fully God and the Divinity was within Him; what I was stressing is that the Father and Spirit did not participate in the Incarnation as the Word did.

Perhaps I have simply failed in communicating my thoughts, that or I should have put a disclaimer that my argument was merely an experiment to see where the ideas went.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 12, 2011, 12:27:39 AM
the argument implies that God's wisdom is somehow divisible

That's one of the things I was trying to get at when I said you were treating knowledge as something quantifiable.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: LBK on August 12, 2011, 12:28:31 AM
Quote
The Father did not participate in the Incarnation, nor did the Spirit.


From the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and supported by the Gospel:

Who, for us men and our salvation, became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man.

Ummm, what say you, theo philosopher?

Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theo philosopher on August 12, 2011, 12:29:16 AM
the argument implies that God's wisdom is somehow divisible

That's one of the things I was trying to get at when I said you were treating knowledge as something quantifiable.
Ah, well I think you pointed to a key mistake in my thinking. Apologies for being a bit too hard-headed. :)

I'm still thinking through the issue of sola scriptura of course. It's bothered me for quite some time and I know there are logical problems with it, I'm just formulating those ideas as they come to me.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theo philosopher on August 12, 2011, 12:30:10 AM
Quote
The Father did not participate in the Incarnation, nor did the Spirit.


From the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and supported by the Gospel:

Who, for us men and our salvation, became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man.

Ummm, what say you, theo philosopher?



I say I agree. When I say "participate," I mean the Spirit didn't also become incarnate. Only the Word is incarnate. The Father is not incarnate. The Spirit is not incarnate. That is what I mean by "participate."

As an addendum:

"For in no wise did the Father and the Holy Ghost participate in the incarnation of the Word of God except by Their good pleasure and will." - St. John of Damascus (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith).

That is what I had in mind when I said "participate."
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 12, 2011, 12:36:12 AM
With Christ we still have two natures, two wills, etc. God still remained unconfined within the Incarnation.

I must confess I didn't expect this line of discussion to end in an endorsement of Nestorianism.

Quote
When we say that "God is contained" we don't mean that the attributes or essence of God is contained, but that the Person of the Word was contained.

To the contrary,

Colossians 2:9 (KJV)
For in [Jesus Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

That's not Nestorian at all! To say that Christ had two wills or two natures isn't Nestorian. That's the traditional teaching.

Likewise, when I say that God wasn't contained in the Incarnation, I'm saying that the Father and Spirit did not participate in the Incarnation.

I fully accept the term Theotokos in that Jesus was fully God and the Divinity was within Him; what I was stressing is that the Father and Spirit did not participate in the Incarnation as the Word did.

Perhaps I have simply failed in communicating my thoughts, that or I should have put a disclaimer that my argument was merely an experiment to see where the ideas went.

Here you are treating Divinity as a divisible. You accept that the fullness of the Godhead is in Christ, but then you imply that the Divinity is three parts all three of which must be contained if we are to say God is contained. I'm not an expert on this stuff, either, but I'm pretty sure you're making some subtle but important errors here. When I mentioned Nestorianism, it wasn't in reference to two wills, two natures, but to your implication that Divinity was ultimately immune, so to speak, to the Incarnation. Not saying you were doing this on purpose, just that I think you may need to exercise a bit more caution.

Though only the Son is incarnate, God is incarnate, because the Son is fully God. The Father, Son, and Spirit do not each have a one-third share of the Divine Essence, they each have it in full.

The WHOLE GOD is incarnate. I can say that and still maintain that, of the Hypostases, only the Son is incarnate.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theo philosopher on August 12, 2011, 12:43:07 AM
With Christ we still have two natures, two wills, etc. God still remained unconfined within the Incarnation.

I must confess I didn't expect this line of discussion to end in an endorsement of Nestorianism.

Quote
When we say that "God is contained" we don't mean that the attributes or essence of God is contained, but that the Person of the Word was contained.

To the contrary,

Colossians 2:9 (KJV)
For in [Jesus Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

That's not Nestorian at all! To say that Christ had two wills or two natures isn't Nestorian. That's the traditional teaching.

Likewise, when I say that God wasn't contained in the Incarnation, I'm saying that the Father and Spirit did not participate in the Incarnation.

I fully accept the term Theotokos in that Jesus was fully God and the Divinity was within Him; what I was stressing is that the Father and Spirit did not participate in the Incarnation as the Word did.

Perhaps I have simply failed in communicating my thoughts, that or I should have put a disclaimer that my argument was merely an experiment to see where the ideas went.

Here you are treating Divinity as a divisible. You accept that the fullness of the Godhead is in Christ, but then you imply that the Divinity is three parts all of which must be contained if we are to say Gid is contained. I'm not an expert on this stuff, either, but I'm pretty sure you're making some subtle but important errors here. When I mentioned Nestorianism, it wasn't in reference to two wills, two natures, but to your implication that Divinity was ultimately immune, so to speak, to the Incarnation. Nit saying you were doing this on purpose, just that I think you may need to exercise a bit more caution.

I'm saying that the Father and Spirit did not participate in the Incarnation. That's not close to Nestorianism; it's Orthodoxy. To argue that the Father and Spirit participated in the Incarnation (that is, became incarnate with the Son) would be Sabellianism (modalism).

So I fail to see how I was implying the Trinity was divisible, merely pointing out that only one Person within the Trinity became Incarnate. So while it is appropriate to say that God became flesh, that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, that God emptied Himself in becoming a man, it would be inappropriate to think that this equally applied to the Father and Spirit. That is the point I've been trying to get across in the last few posts.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 12, 2011, 12:45:22 AM
To argue that the Father and Spirit participated in the Incarnation (that is, became incarnate with the Son) would be Sabellianism (modalism).

I'm not arguing for that.

What I'm arguing is that there is a serious problem with saying,

Quote
the entirety of God wasn't contained in the Incarnation.

Because that is by definition saying, a part of God is incarnate.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 12, 2011, 12:50:53 AM
Okay, let's chill out, everyone. This thread is about Alfred Persson's understanding of sola scriptura, not about the theological fallacies inherent in theo philosopher's less than stellar analogy. Let's leave theo alone and get back on topic.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 12, 2011, 12:55:36 AM
This all started when Peter pointed out the inconsistency of your claim that the finite cannot contain the infinite with the doctrine of the Incarnation. You then denied the inconsistency by claiming the entire God wasn't contained in the Incarnation. But

3 x infinity is the same as 1 x infinity.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 12, 2011, 12:56:31 AM
Okay, let's chill out, everyone. This thread is about Alfred Persson's understanding of sola scriptura, not about the theological fallacies inherent in theo philosopher's less than stellar analogy. Let's leave theo alone and get back on topic.

Thank you.


Sorry. Saw this after I posted. I gotta go to bed anyway.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2011, 01:49:12 AM
So what precisely did Christ mean by πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν “all therefore whatever if-ever” they bid? The same as πάντα ὅσα ἐὰν  “all whatever if-ever” in Mat 21:22  
"And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Mat 21:22 NKJ)

You can't define πάντα όσα εάν in the text we are discussing in this way. You are assuming your interpretation of the meaning of the entire phrase πάντα όσα εάν αιτησητε εν τη προσευχη ('whatsoever you ask in prayer') in Matthew 21:22 is inherent in πάντα όσα εάν itself, and then turning it into a general principle ('whatever' in the Bible means 'Godly things'), with zero justification, in order to apply it to our discussion text. This is ridiculous. What sort of exegetical rule are you following?

Contextual usage principle.

Its very evident you can't ask for what violates God's will, He will not give you that.

Its also evident you can't follow everything the Pharisees teach, Christ Himself details ooodles of traditions and practices we aren't to follow. Therefore the meaning is "all whatsoever they fetch [properly] from the law---while seated in Moses' seat.



Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2011, 01:51:19 AM
Again I failed to communicate.

It must be explicit IF I want to consider the teaching "a must for every Christian."

Those teachings I must deduce from scripture, can't be considered "rule of the faith," as they aren't expressly taught.

They are deduced.

I can believe in quantum mechanics etc., which isn't in scripture, but can't make those "a rule of the Christian faith" because they aren't expressly taught in scripture.



Is this distinction you make between "expressly taught" and "deduced" expressly taught in Scripture, or deduced therefrom?
Thanks for pointing that out. According to his own logic, then, Alfred would have to recognize that sola scriptura cannot be considered a "rule of faith" since he must deduce it from Scripture, as it is not expressly taught in Scripture.

I never said the word "alone" is in the verse [2 Timothy 3:15-17], I said it is deducible...

Now you got it, but are wrong about sola scriptura.

Paul did say God wrote scripture so that all  of it is profitable for doctrine and it completely equips...

He doesn't say that about other literature, poets, church tradition, liturgy, dreams, visions, prophecies, feelings, etc...

Only every scripture is profitable because God inspired it that way = unique in all the earth = sola scripture is inspired by God so that all of it is profitable....

That means sola scriptura is a rule of the faith.

Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: DennyB on August 12, 2011, 05:24:45 AM
Again I failed to communicate.

It must be explicit IF I want to consider the teaching "a must for every Christian."

Those teachings I must deduce from scripture, can't be considered "rule of the faith," as they aren't expressly taught.

They are deduced.

I can believe in quantum mechanics etc., which isn't in scripture, but can't make those "a rule of the Christian faith" because they aren't expressly taught in scripture.



Is this distinction you make between "expressly taught" and "deduced" expressly taught in Scripture, or deduced therefrom?
Thanks for pointing that out. According to his own logic, then, Alfred would have to recognize that sola scriptura cannot be considered a "rule of faith" since he must deduce it from Scripture, as it is not expressly taught in Scripture.

I never said the word "alone" is in the verse [2 Timothy 3:15-17], I said it is deducible...

Now you got it, but are wrong about sola scriptura.

Paul did say God wrote scripture so that all  of it is profitable for doctrine and it completely equips...

He doesn't say that about other literature, poets, church tradition, liturgy, dreams, visions, prophecies, feelings, etc...

Only every scripture is profitable because God inspired it that way = unique in all the earth = sola scripture is inspired by God so that all of it is profitable....

That means sola scriptura is a rule of the faith.



It's a very major assumption on your part to go from Scripture is profitable and fully equips to Sola Scriptura is profitable and fully equips. Think about this,just because I go out and by the best power tools available,wouldn't make me a master carpenter!!  Your conclusion is logically flawed.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: biro on August 12, 2011, 05:42:52 AM
Quote from: Alfred Persson
Only every scripture is profitable because God inspired it that way = unique in all the earth = sola scripture is inspired by God so that all of it is profitable....

That means sola scriptura is a rule of the faith.

No, it doesn't.

You inserted your claim and self-approved it. That isn't logic, that's sophistry: assuming your argument is true and never 'showing your work,' just rephrasing yourself many different ways.

Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2011, 07:40:12 AM
Again I failed to communicate.

It must be explicit IF I want to consider the teaching "a must for every Christian."

Those teachings I must deduce from scripture, can't be considered "rule of the faith," as they aren't expressly taught.

They are deduced.

I can believe in quantum mechanics etc., which isn't in scripture, but can't make those "a rule of the Christian faith" because they aren't expressly taught in scripture.



Is this distinction you make between "expressly taught" and "deduced" expressly taught in Scripture, or deduced therefrom?
Thanks for pointing that out. According to his own logic, then, Alfred would have to recognize that sola scriptura cannot be considered a "rule of faith" since he must deduce it from Scripture, as it is not expressly taught in Scripture.

I never said the word "alone" is in the verse [2 Timothy 3:15-17], I said it is deducible...

Now you got it, but are wrong about sola scriptura.

Paul did say God wrote scripture so that all  of it is profitable for doctrine and it completely equips...

He doesn't say that about other literature, poets, church tradition, liturgy, dreams, visions, prophecies, feelings, etc...

Only every scripture is profitable because God inspired it that way = unique in all the earth = sola scripture is inspired by God so that all of it is profitable....

That means sola scriptura is a rule of the faith.



It's a very major assumption on your part to go from Scripture is profitable and fully equips to Sola Scriptura is profitable and fully equips. Think about this,just because I go out and by the best power tools available,wouldn't make me a master carpenter!!  Your conclusion is logically flawed.

Sola scriptura is not solo scriptura, not only must the interpreter of scripture learn sound principles of interpretation, God has blessed the church with teachers who certainly aid in bringing to the fore nuances in the text that otherwise might be missed:

NKJ  1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers,  (1Co 12:28 NKJ)

Sola scripture is like saying "if you learn how to use the power tools, they will do the job."

That is different than saying "regardless how good the power tools are, and how good you are, you still need liturgy to do the job."

That isn't taught in scripture.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2011, 08:03:03 AM
Quote from: Alfred Persson
Only every scripture is profitable because God inspired it that way = unique in all the earth = sola scripture is inspired by God so that all of it is profitable....

That means sola scriptura is a rule of the faith.

No, it doesn't.

You inserted your claim and self-approved it. That isn't logic, that's sophistry: assuming your argument is true and never 'showing your work,' just rephrasing yourself many different ways.


The text is quite explicit, God inspired scripture so that every verse of it is profitable for doctrine in order that the man of God be complete:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2Ti 3:16-17 NKJ)

The ASV is considered very literal:

 16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
 17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work. (2Ti 3:16-1 ASV)

Every scripture; All scripture > Every verse in Scripture

"Inspired of God is also profitable for teaching" >every scripture God inspired is profitable for teaching

That the man of God may be complete >  furnished completely unto every good work.

Verse 17 is literally "in order that", which makes this the conclusion of the premises in verse 16.

God inspired scripture to be profitable for doctrine IN ORDER THAT the man of God be complete.


This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


No matter how hard I look, i can't find that idea in the text.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: David Young on August 12, 2011, 08:39:40 AM
BTW, if you want to use Latin, please use it correctly.  It should be solum Verbum Dei as verbum is neuter.

Didn't it ought to be ablative? solo verbo dei? I thought the other solas are all ablative - gratia, fide, scriptura - but I may be wrong.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 12, 2011, 10:11:16 AM
Christ Himself details ooodles of traditions and practices we aren't to follow.

I'd like to see the oodles enumerated, if you don't mind.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 12, 2011, 10:17:20 AM
it [Scripture] completely equips

Paul doesn't say that. You interpret Paul as saying that.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The verse does not say whether Scipture is sufficient by itself to make the man of God perfect and thoroughly furnished, or whether Scripture's role is supplementary.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 12, 2011, 10:27:41 AM
He doesn't say that about other literature, poets, church tradition, liturgy, dreams, visions, prophecies, feelings, etc...

He doesn't comment on those in this passage because that wouldn't be on topic. You are assuming that Paul is concerned in this passage with Scripture vs. Tradition, which he is not. Paul is not engaged in the argument you are. The passage IMHO is simply an exhortation to continually read the Scriptures for spiritual nourishment, which is part of the Orthodox Tradition. (If the passage is argumentative at all, more likely his concern here is to counter those in the early church who disparaged the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), like the later Marcionites.)[/quote]

Quote
Only every scripture is profitable because God inspired it that way = unique in all the earth = sola scripture is inspired by God so that all of it is profitable....

The passage does not say, 'only scripture...'. You said that.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 12, 2011, 10:32:04 AM
how good you are

The spiritual pride at the heart of 'sola scriptura' shows itself.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 12, 2011, 11:25:54 AM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: IsmiLiora on August 12, 2011, 11:28:43 AM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 12, 2011, 11:50:10 AM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

Yes, it's one of those famous red-text arguments Jesus had with himself in the bible. ::)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: orthonorm on August 12, 2011, 12:02:21 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Schultz on August 12, 2011, 12:13:06 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.

I was thinking the same thing.  We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast.  We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 12, 2011, 01:00:51 PM




Again I failed to communicate.

It must be explicit IF I want to consider the teaching "a must for every Christian."

Those teachings I must deduce from scripture, can't be considered "rule of the faith," as they aren't expressly taught.

They are deduced.

I can believe in quantum mechanics etc., which isn't in scripture, but can't make those "a rule of the Christian faith" because they aren't expressly taught in scripture.




Is this distinction you make between "expressly taught" and "deduced" expressly taught in Scripture, or deduced therefrom?

Thanks for pointing that out. According to his own logic, then, Alfred would have to recognize that sola scriptura cannot be considered a "rule of faith" since he must deduce it from Scripture, as it is not expressly taught in Scripture.


I never said the word "alone" is in the verse [2 Timothy 3:15-17], I said it is deducible...



Now you got it, but are wrong about sola scriptura.

Paul did say God wrote scripture so that all  of it is profitable for doctrine and it completely equips...

He doesn't say that about other literature, poets, church tradition, liturgy, dreams, visions, prophecies, feelings, etc...

Actually, yes he does.

And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.  ~ Ephesians 4:11-16 (RSV)

You happen to notice something that's glaringly absent from this list? Scripture! Nowhere in the above passage is Scripture listed as a means for equipping the saints. Does this mean that the Scriptures are useless in equipping the saints. Of course not! So why would Paul's non-inclusion of everything but Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 imply that Scripture alone is necessary for the equipping of the saints?


Only every scripture is profitable because God inspired it that way = unique in all the earth = sola scripture is inspired by God so that all of it is profitable....

That means sola scriptura is a rule of the faith.

The Church is unique among all human organizations that have ever existed on the earth in that it alone is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, yet you don't think of the Church as a rule of the faith. Why is that?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: orthonorm on August 12, 2011, 01:05:13 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.

I was thinking the same thing.  We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast.  We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.

You have yet to hear my OC.net chat audio brilliance
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 12, 2011, 01:05:52 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Evidently, Alfred isn't aware of all the liturgical imagery in the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation to the "lay folk").
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: IsmiLiora on August 12, 2011, 01:14:22 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.

I was thinking the same thing.  We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast.  We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.

You have yet to hear my OC.net chat audio brilliance
What about mine?

P.S. I just learned what "cans" referred to yesterday, so I am well on my way.  8)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2011, 01:27:29 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.

I was thinking the same thing.  We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast.  We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.

Still waiting for one of you to prove Paul included liturgy in this text:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
[/color] (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)



Where is the word "liturgy?"
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 12, 2011, 01:41:33 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.

I was thinking the same thing.  We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast.  We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.

Still waiting for one of you to prove Paul included liturgy in this text:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
[/color] (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)



Where is the word "liturgy?"

As you usual you are completely sidestepping the questions asked you, and "moving on" to ask us to "prove" a new straw man argument we didn't make.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 12, 2011, 01:47:32 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.

I was thinking the same thing.  We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast.  We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.

Still waiting for one of you to prove Paul included liturgy in this text:
Where is anyone asserting that "liturgy" IS in 2 Timothy 3:16-17? If no one has made that assertion, then we bear no responsibility to prove that assertion to you.

You, however, must prove that the absence of "liturgy" in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 means that liturgy is NOT profitable for equipping the saints, since you ARE asserting this. Considering that he also doesn't mention here apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers--ministries the same St. Paul lists in Ephesians 4:11 as gifted for the equipping of the saints--your burden of proof becomes even bigger. Why does non-inclusion automatically equal deliberate exclusion?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theo philosopher on August 12, 2011, 01:52:16 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.

I was thinking the same thing.  We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast.  We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.

Still waiting for one of you to prove Paul included liturgy in this text:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
[/color] (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)



Where is the word "liturgy?"

It seems this is the only, or at least the main, passage you're hung up on in defending sola scriputra. Obviously if your belief lacks a Scriptural claim or Scriptural backing, then it is a self-refuting belief and should be cast aside. So let's look at 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and see if it works as a defense for sola scriptura.

We must remember that "profitable" doesn't mean "solely." That is, in the Greek the word might mean something is important and even needed, but it doesn't indicate that it and it alone is needed. We might need oxygen to breath, but oxygen alone isn't what keeps us alive. Likewise, we might need Scripture in order to test doctrines and have revelation, but Scripture alone isn't what builds up our spirit.

The passages states that the "man of God" is made perfect by the use of Scripture, but it doesn't say that Scripture alone makes a "man of God." So we can't inverse the meaning of the passage without exposing our own theological biases. We are then left interpreting the passage to mean that a man of God must rely on Scripture in order to obtain perfect, but nothing within that statement indicates that Scripture alone is what makes a person a "man of God."

Now, certainly you'll disagree with what I have said above. You'll wish to offer a counter-interpretaiton and should I choose to continue the debate, we'll end up proof-texting each other until one of us wears out, one of us is banned, or the topic closes. And therein lies one of the practical problems of sola scriptura (moving away from 2 Timothy now, which if it doesn't support your case you're left with a belief that Scripture alone grants authority without any Scripture to back up that belief); while the belief arose out of the abuses of the Catholic Church and the Popes, sola scriputra doesn't avoid those abuses, but only exacerbates them by making every man a pope. Whereas the Councils could work through their theological disagreements/misunderstandings because of an established authority structure and because they were knowledgable in the faith, under the idea of sola scriptura anyone can have a personal interpretation of Scripture. Practically speaking, how does this aid the collective body in moving towards the Truth?

I think there wouldn't be an issue with sola scriptura if Protestants simply changed the idea to one where nothing could contradict Scripture. After all, I doubt many or any Orthodox or even Roman Catholics would object to such a belief (as, from what I've seen, it's what they believe). Such a belief would allow for tradition, liturgy, and so on because such traditions do not contradict Scripture. This would also allows us to accept things not found in Scripture, but that coincide with Scriptural teachings.

Sadly, however, much of sola scriptura has turned into the belief that if anything is to be taught, it must be found in Scripture. This, of course, limits what one can believe and what language one can use; we've seen how heretical groups have completely turned sola scriptura around on Protestants to claim that since the word "Trinity" isn't found in Scripture, it can be rejected. Now, you would hopefully think such a way of thinking is crazy, but who is to say they're wrong if we buy into sola scriptura? After all, the word "Trinity" doesn't appear in Scripture, so aren't they just following Scripture more closely than you or I? Hence the problems of this belief.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2011, 02:10:34 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.

I was thinking the same thing.  We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast.  We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.

Still waiting for one of you to prove Paul included liturgy in this text:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
[/color] (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)



Where is the word "liturgy?"

It seems this is the only, or at least the main, passage you're hung up on in defending sola scriputra.  snip!

That's absurd, the OP is the main text, how did you miss it?

I'll check out the rest of your argument later...hilarious..
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: genesisone on August 12, 2011, 02:15:09 PM
The text is quite explicit, God inspired scripture so that every verse of it is profitable for doctrine in order that the man of God be complete:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2Ti 3:16-17 NKJ)

The ASV is considered very literal:

 16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
 17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work. (2Ti 3:16-1 ASV)

Every scripture; All scripture > Every verse in Scripture

"Inspired of God is also profitable for teaching" >every scripture God inspired is profitable for teaching

That the man of God may be complete >  furnished completely unto every good work.

Verse 17 is literally "in order that", which makes this the conclusion of the premises in verse 16.

God inspired scripture to be profitable for doctrine IN ORDER THAT the man of God be complete.
Alfred, if I were to say, "All exercise ... is profitable ... that the man of God may enjoy complete health", would you argue that "Only exercise is necessary for my health. All of those other rules about eating properly, quitting smoking, getting plenty of rest are just man-made rules that mean nothing"?

If you read St Paul's other letter to Timothy, you will find (chapter 4):
"8 For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come." (NKJV)

Ecclesiastes 7:11 "Wisdom is good with an inheritance, And profitable to those who see the sun." (NKJV)

Scripture is not the only thing that is profitable for the man of God.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 12, 2011, 02:24:22 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.

I was thinking the same thing.  We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast.  We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.

Still waiting for one of you to prove Paul included liturgy in this text:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
[/color] (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)



Where is the word "liturgy?"

Alfred, answer my question. Do you believe that worshipping God is profitable for salvation or not? And again, I ask, do you even know what a liturgy is?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Schultz on August 12, 2011, 02:27:36 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.

I was thinking the same thing.  We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast.  We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.

You have yet to hear my OC.net chat audio brilliance

You are correct, I have not yet heard this.  I must remedy this as soon as possible.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theo philosopher on August 12, 2011, 02:38:07 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.

I was thinking the same thing.  We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast.  We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.

Still waiting for one of you to prove Paul included liturgy in this text:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
[/color] (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)



Where is the word "liturgy?"

It seems this is the only, or at least the main, passage you're hung up on in defending sola scriputra.  snip!

That's absurd, the OP is the main text, how did you miss it?

I'll check out the rest of your argument later...hilarious..

I did read the other passages and all of them are based on presuppositions. Only 2 Timothy 3:16 seemed to actually touch on the issue without requiring us to assume any theological grid.

Regardless, the rest of my "hilarious" post should deal with the theological underpinnings you'r bringing to the belief.

But let me ask you an unrelated question, and please feel free to answer honestly: Are you here to win or to learn?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: IsmiLiora on August 12, 2011, 02:38:52 PM
You are correct, I have not yet heard this.  I must remedy this as soon as possible.
Be ready to log on at 2 A.M. on a Wednesday night.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 12, 2011, 02:41:40 PM
I don't think he's here for either. Seems likely he's here to hear himself talk (or read himself type).
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Schultz on August 12, 2011, 03:01:46 PM
You are correct, I have not yet heard this.  I must remedy this as soon as possible.
Be ready to log on at 2 A.M. on a Wednesday night.

EDT?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: IsmiLiora on August 12, 2011, 03:07:28 PM
You are correct, I have not yet heard this.  I must remedy this as soon as possible.
Be ready to log on at 2 A.M. on a Wednesday night.

EDT?
Yup. I was joshing a bit about the day -- the other guys who are on all the time can tell you, but it seems to happen on mainly weekdays, when we're all supposed to be sleeping.

If you come on I will cede my mic to you!
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 12, 2011, 03:09:51 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.

I was thinking the same thing.  We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast.  We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.

Still waiting for one of you to prove Paul included liturgy in this text:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
[/color] (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)



Where is the word "liturgy?"

Alfred, answer my question. Do you believe that worshipping God is profitable for salvation or not? And again, I ask, do you even know what a liturgy is?
Alfred,

Moving forward with the directive I posted HERE (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38722.msg619647.html#msg619647), I'm not going to let you evade this question by asking that we prove another one of those straw man arguments you like to put into our mouths. You therefore have 24 hours to answer these questions from Cavaradossi. If you fail to do so, you will be placed on Post Moderation until you submit an answer. The clock expires at 12:30 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time) tomorrow.

- PeterTheAleut
Section Moderator
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: LBK on August 12, 2011, 06:44:42 PM
Alfred seems to be completely unaware that Orthodox liturgical services are stuffed full of scripture!
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 12, 2011, 07:08:12 PM
Alfred seems to be completely unaware that Orthodox liturgical services are stuffed full of scripture!
And that the Scriptures, particular the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St. John, are stuffed full of liturgical imagery and references!
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2011, 07:11:51 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.

I was thinking the same thing.  We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast.  We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.

Still waiting for one of you to prove Paul included liturgy in this text:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
[/color] (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)



Where is the word "liturgy?"

Alfred, answer my question. Do you believe that worshipping God is profitable for salvation or not? And again, I ask, do you even know what a liturgy is?
Alfred,

Moving forward with the directive I posted HERE (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38722.msg619647.html#msg619647), I'm not going to let you evade this question by asking that we prove another one of those straw man arguments you like to put into our mouths. You therefore have 24 hours to answer these questions from Cavaradossi. If you fail to do so, you will be placed on Post Moderation until you submit an answer. The clock expires at 12:30 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time) tomorrow.

- PeterTheAleut
Section Moderator


Being you insist I address his precise argument, I insist you excerpt it entire here, I will not slog through smear to find the tiny point he may have made.




Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: LBK on August 12, 2011, 07:12:15 PM
Alfred seems to be completely unaware that Orthodox liturgical services are stuffed full of scripture!
And that the Scriptures, particular the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St. John, are stuffed full of liturgical imagery and references!

Exactly!  :laugh: So Alfred's statement of This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church is shown to be the utter nonsense it is.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Shiny on August 12, 2011, 07:12:57 PM
Alfred seems to be completely unaware that Orthodox liturgical services are stuffed full of scripture!
And that the Scriptures, particular the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St. John, are stuffed full of liturgical imagery and references!
This makes me happy and sad. Sad that I can't predict future events using the Apocalypse.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 12, 2011, 07:14:43 PM
I like how he dodged the fact that his assertion that a rule of faith must be explicit in Scripture backfires on his desire to make sola scriptura a rule of faith.

Also I'm still waiting for an answer on the lost epistles of Paul, etc.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 12, 2011, 07:16:04 PM
Alfred seems to be completely unaware that Orthodox liturgical services are stuffed full of scripture!
And that the Scriptures, particular the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St. John, are stuffed full of liturgical imagery and references!
Sad that I can't predict future events using the Apocalypse.
You didn't grow up premill, did you?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 12, 2011, 07:16:29 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.

I was thinking the same thing.  We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast.  We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.

Still waiting for one of you to prove Paul included liturgy in this text:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
[/color] (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)



Where is the word "liturgy?"

Alfred, answer my question. Do you believe that worshipping God is profitable for salvation or not? And again, I ask, do you even know what a liturgy is?
Alfred,

Moving forward with the directive I posted HERE (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38722.msg619647.html#msg619647), I'm not going to let you evade this question by asking that we prove another one of those straw man arguments you like to put into our mouths. You therefore have 24 hours to answer these questions from Cavaradossi. If you fail to do so, you will be placed on Post Moderation until you submit an answer. The clock expires at 12:30 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time) tomorrow.

- PeterTheAleut
Section Moderator


Being you insist I address his precise argument, I insist you excerpt it entire here, I will not slog through smear to find the tiny point he may have made.
I am not going to submit to any conditions you may place upon me, and if you continue to insist that I meet your demands, you will be placed immediately on Post Moderation. My ultimatum in Reply #161 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38722.msg620400.html#msg620400) quotes exactly the questions you are to answer. Now answer the questions.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theo philosopher on August 12, 2011, 07:18:16 PM
Alfred seems to be completely unaware that Orthodox liturgical services are stuffed full of scripture!
And that the Scriptures, particular the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St. John, are stuffed full of liturgical imagery and references!

What references? I don't mean that in a combative way either, I'm actually curious about it because I was never taught this. It also makes sense to me in light of Paul putting liturgy into his writings.

You can PM it to me if you want (or anyone can) if you feel it would detract from the thread. I'm sure the references were somewhere in this thread...but I must have glanced over them.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 12, 2011, 07:21:38 PM
Alfred seems to be completely unaware that Orthodox liturgical services are stuffed full of scripture!
And that the Scriptures, particular the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St. John, are stuffed full of liturgical imagery and references!

Exactly!  :laugh: So Alfred's statement of This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church is shown to be the utter nonsense it is.
Especially when you consider that many traditional Protestants insist that sola scriptura means each and every sermon needs to be an expository Scripture sandwich- between the liturgy and the homily practically all either Orthodox or Protestants do during a service is recite, explain, or allude to Scripture!
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2011, 07:27:13 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.

I was thinking the same thing.  We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast.  We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.

Still waiting for one of you to prove Paul included liturgy in this text:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
[/color] (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)



Where is the word "liturgy?"

Alfred, answer my question. Do you believe that worshipping God is profitable for salvation or not? And again, I ask, do you even know what a liturgy is?
Alfred,

Moving forward with the directive I posted HERE (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38722.msg619647.html#msg619647), I'm not going to let you evade this question by asking that we prove another one of those straw man arguments you like to put into our mouths. You therefore have 24 hours to answer these questions from Cavaradossi. If you fail to do so, you will be placed on Post Moderation until you submit an answer. The clock expires at 12:30 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time) tomorrow.

- PeterTheAleut
Section Moderator


Being you insist I address his precise argument, I insist you excerpt it entire here, I will not slog through smear to find the tiny point he may have made.
I am not going to submit to any conditions you may place upon me, and if you continue to insist that I meet your demands, you will be placed immediately on Post Moderation. My ultimatum in Reply #161 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38722.msg620400.html#msg620400) quotes exactly the questions you are to answer. Now answer the questions.

Unfair!

You cannot insist I answer a precise argument, and then refuse to tell me what it is.

I already know what you will allege after I slog through all that material, and miss something. you will accuse me of purposely missing it.


You made the demand, its up to you to produce the PRECISE argument you want me to answer, or your demand is merely a device to ban me.

I endured your repeated spam hissing I never answered your argument, after I repeatedly did.

You smeared me without cause and when I objected you put me under warning.

I don't believe you are a fair moderator at all.

You have an agenda against me.

So either you produce the precise argument, or dispense with the facade and ban me.
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif)
Okay, you asked for it. For continuing to argue with my moderatorial directives and for using this public board to complain about forum moderation despite repeated instructions that you are to do so only via private message, you are now on indefinite Post Moderation. I have also forwarded to the global moderators a request that you be muted, since this is not the first time you have been so disciplined for such rude contempt. I have no personal agenda against you, Alfred, but I have instructions to not allow you to dominate this forum as you have. If you believe this action wrong, please feel free to appeal it via private message to Veniamin.

- PeterTheAleut
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnmute.gif) Per the request of the moderator of this section, you are being muted indefinitely for your contempt for his moderatorial direction, and for arguing about your moderation publicly.  You should communicate with Fr. Chris directly via PM to discuss the terms under which your Muting will be lifted.

- Fr. George, Global Moderator
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 12, 2011, 07:38:36 PM
Alfred seems to be completely unaware that Orthodox liturgical services are stuffed full of scripture!
And that the Scriptures, particular the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St. John, are stuffed full of liturgical imagery and references!

What references? I don't mean that in a combative way either, I'm actually curious about it because I was never taught this. It also makes sense to me in light of Paul putting liturgy into his writings.

You can PM it to me if you want (or anyone can) if you feel it would detract from the thread. I'm sure the references were somewhere in this thread...but I must have glanced over them.
Thank you for asking, since this really hasn't been covered in this thread. I think it pertinent, however, to the discussion since Alfred has made the absence of "liturgy" in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 an argument against the spiritual profitability of liturgy. I'll therefore attempt to point out a few of these references in Revelation (a.k.a., the Apocalypse of St. John).


In the Gospel of John, we also have these references:

I know this is just a start, but it should be enough for now to open your eyes to the rich liturgical imagery that is in the Scriptures.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 12, 2011, 07:41:55 PM
This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.


Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking?  ???

You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.

I was thinking the same thing.  We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast.  We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.

Still waiting for one of you to prove Paul included liturgy in this text:

 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
[/color] (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)



Where is the word "liturgy?"

Alfred, answer my question. Do you believe that worshipping God is profitable for salvation or not? And again, I ask, do you even know what a liturgy is?
Alfred,

Moving forward with the directive I posted HERE (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38722.msg619647.html#msg619647), I'm not going to let you evade this question by asking that we prove another one of those straw man arguments you like to put into our mouths. You therefore have 24 hours to answer these questions from Cavaradossi. If you fail to do so, you will be placed on Post Moderation until you submit an answer. The clock expires at 12:30 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time) tomorrow.

- PeterTheAleut
Section Moderator


Being you insist I address his precise argument, I insist you excerpt it entire here, I will not slog through smear to find the tiny point he may have made.
I am not going to submit to any conditions you may place upon me, and if you continue to insist that I meet your demands, you will be placed immediately on Post Moderation. My ultimatum in Reply #161 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38722.msg620400.html#msg620400) quotes exactly the questions you are to answer. Now answer the questions.

Unfair!

You cannot insist I answer a precise argument, and then refuse to tell me what it is.

I already know what you will allege after I slog through all that material, and miss something. you will accuse me of purposely missing it.


You made the demand, its up to you to produce the PRECISE argument you want me to answer, or your demand is merely a device to ban me.

I endured your repeated spam hissing I never answered your argument, after I repeatedly did.

You smeared me without cause and when I objected you put me under warning.

I don't believe you are a fair moderator at all.

You have an agenda against me.

So either you produce the precise argument, or dispense with the facade and ban me.

Lord have mercy, must you have a meltdown over this? He has clearly asked you to answer the questions which I have put forth: Do you believe that worshipping God is profitable for salvation? Do you know what a liturgy is?

I highly doubt that your histrionics are gaining you any sympathy, either from the regular posters or the moderators.

Edit: Honestly, I have made four posts in this thread prior to this one, the four of which probably total under 100 words. Two of them have conveniently been quoted for you by PeterTheAleut, one was a joke, and one comes from the very beginning of the thread, asking you how one should interpret the Bible without the aid of tradition (a question, I might add, that it seems like you never decided to answer). I think that it should be obvious from context that what he wants you to answer is the post which he has quoted.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Alfred Persson on August 12, 2011, 07:43:27 PM
Alfred seems to be completely unaware that Orthodox liturgical services are stuffed full of scripture!
And that the Scriptures, particular the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St. John, are stuffed full of liturgical imagery and references!

What references? I don't mean that in a combative way either, I'm actually curious about it because I was never taught this. It also makes sense to me in light of Paul putting liturgy into his writings.

You can PM it to me if you want (or anyone can) if you feel it would detract from the thread. I'm sure the references were somewhere in this thread...but I must have glanced over them.
Thank you for asking, since this really hasn't been covered in this thread. I think it pertinent, however, to the discussion since Alfred has made the absence of "liturgy" in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 an argument against the spiritual profitability of liturgy. I'll therefore attempt to point out a few of these references in Revelation (a.k.a., the Apocalypse of St. John).

  • The seven golden lampstands of Rev. 1:12-13
  • The martyrs under the altar in Rev. 6:9-11
  • The vision of the heavenly temple and heavenly worship in Rev. 4:1-11; 11:15-19; 15:5-8

In the Gospel of John, we also have these references:
  • the Eucharist ("Eat My flesh and drink My blood.") - John 6:43-59
  • Baptism and Chrismation ("Unless one is born of water and the Spirit") - John 3:1-9

I know this is just a start, but it should be enough for now to open your eyes to the rich liturgical imagery that is in the Scriptures.

You misstated my argument, I said nothing for or against liturgy per se, I said it wasn't included with the scripture by Paul as profitable for doctrine.

The only thing Paul says is inspired by God to be profitable for doctrine, in that text, is scripture alone.

Scripture ALONE.

The word is implicit, not explicit. I never said the word alone was there, i said its logical it is, because only scripture is so described as being entirely profitable for doctrine.

But that rules out any possibility liturgy is being included by Paul. He speaks of the bible ALONE.

Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: LBK on August 12, 2011, 07:57:12 PM
The only thing Paul says is inspired by God to be profitable for doctrine, in that text, is scripture alone.

But that rules out any possibility liturgy is being included by Paul. He speaks of the bible ALONE.

Setting aside the fact that Orthodox liturgical services are loaded with scripture (as is the creed), Paul said this in one of his letters, which, at the time he wrote it, was not part of the Bible as you know it today! Or are you suggesting only the Old Testament as it existed in Paul's day, is the legitimate Bible?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theo philosopher on August 12, 2011, 08:01:43 PM
Alfred seems to be completely unaware that Orthodox liturgical services are stuffed full of scripture!
And that the Scriptures, particular the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St. John, are stuffed full of liturgical imagery and references!

What references? I don't mean that in a combative way either, I'm actually curious about it because I was never taught this. It also makes sense to me in light of Paul putting liturgy into his writings.

You can PM it to me if you want (or anyone can) if you feel it would detract from the thread. I'm sure the references were somewhere in this thread...but I must have glanced over them.
Thank you for asking, since this really hasn't been covered in this thread. I think it pertinent, however, to the discussion since Alfred has made the absence of "liturgy" in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 an argument against the spiritual profitability of liturgy. I'll therefore attempt to point out a few of these references in Revelation (a.k.a., the Apocalypse of St. John).

  • The seven golden lampstands of Rev. 1:12-13
  • The martyrs under the altar in Rev. 6:9-11
  • The vision of the heavenly temple and heavenly worship in Rev. 4:1-11; 11:15-19; 15:5-8

In the Gospel of John, we also have these references:
  • the Eucharist ("Eat My flesh and drink My blood.") - John 6:43-59
  • Baptism and Chrismation ("Unless one is born of water and the Spirit") - John 3:1-9

I know this is just a start, but it should be enough for now to open your eyes to the rich liturgical imagery that is in the Scriptures.

Thank you very much. The liturgy in the Apocalypse of St. John is so blatant to me.

With the Liturgy from the Gospel of John, are you saying that at the time this was liturgical, or that it was adopted into liturgy? (Having been to numerous Orthodox services now, I've heard more Scripture read in one service than I did in 10 years of a "bible-believing, exegetical-preaching church," so that part is nailed down. I was looking for references to Scripture that were liturgy at the time, that the author of the passage was drawing from known liturgy at that point, if that makes any sense).
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 12, 2011, 08:08:31 PM
Alfred seems to be completely unaware that Orthodox liturgical services are stuffed full of scripture!
And that the Scriptures, particular the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St. John, are stuffed full of liturgical imagery and references!

What references? I don't mean that in a combative way either, I'm actually curious about it because I was never taught this. It also makes sense to me in light of Paul putting liturgy into his writings.

You can PM it to me if you want (or anyone can) if you feel it would detract from the thread. I'm sure the references were somewhere in this thread...but I must have glanced over them.
Thank you for asking, since this really hasn't been covered in this thread. I think it pertinent, however, to the discussion since Alfred has made the absence of "liturgy" in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 an argument against the spiritual profitability of liturgy. I'll therefore attempt to point out a few of these references in Revelation (a.k.a., the Apocalypse of St. John).

  • The seven golden lampstands of Rev. 1:12-13
  • The martyrs under the altar in Rev. 6:9-11
  • The vision of the heavenly temple and heavenly worship in Rev. 4:1-11; 11:15-19; 15:5-8

In the Gospel of John, we also have these references:
  • the Eucharist ("Eat My flesh and drink My blood.") - John 6:43-59
  • Baptism and Chrismation ("Unless one is born of water and the Spirit") - John 3:1-9

I know this is just a start, but it should be enough for now to open your eyes to the rich liturgical imagery that is in the Scriptures.

Thank you very much. The liturgy in the Apocalypse of St. John is so blatant to me.

With the Liturgy from the Gospel of John, are you saying that at the time this was liturgical, or that it was adopted into liturgy? (Having been to numerous Orthodox services now, I've heard more Scripture read in one service than I did in 10 years of a "bible-believing, exegetical-preaching church," so that part is nailed down. I was looking for references to Scripture that were liturgy at the time, that the author of the passage was drawing from known liturgy at that point, if that makes any sense).
Since John was a Levitical priest as the son of a Levitical priest, it appears safe to say that John had a very good understanding of liturgy. I would say, then, that John probably interpreted Jesus' words in a liturgical context and read back into Jesus' words much of the imagery he had come to know from both Jewish and Christian worship.

Since John wrote his Gospel years, possibly 20 years, after the three Synoptics were completed, I would also think it safe to say that he had overseen a lot more of the liturgical development that took place within the early Church then Matthew, Mark, and Luke had.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 12, 2011, 08:11:01 PM
Alfred seems to be completely unaware that Orthodox liturgical services are stuffed full of scripture!
And that the Scriptures, particular the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St. John, are stuffed full of liturgical imagery and references!

What references? I don't mean that in a combative way either, I'm actually curious about it because I was never taught this. It also makes sense to me in light of Paul putting liturgy into his writings.

You can PM it to me if you want (or anyone can) if you feel it would detract from the thread. I'm sure the references were somewhere in this thread...but I must have glanced over them.
Thank you for asking, since this really hasn't been covered in this thread. I think it pertinent, however, to the discussion since Alfred has made the absence of "liturgy" in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 an argument against the spiritual profitability of liturgy. I'll therefore attempt to point out a few of these references in Revelation (a.k.a., the Apocalypse of St. John).

  • The seven golden lampstands of Rev. 1:12-13
  • The martyrs under the altar in Rev. 6:9-11
  • The vision of the heavenly temple and heavenly worship in Rev. 4:1-11; 11:15-19; 15:5-8

In the Gospel of John, we also have these references:
  • the Eucharist ("Eat My flesh and drink My blood.") - John 6:43-59
  • Baptism and Chrismation ("Unless one is born of water and the Spirit") - John 3:1-9

I know this is just a start, but it should be enough for now to open your eyes to the rich liturgical imagery that is in the Scriptures.

You misstated my argument, I said nothing for or against liturgy per se, I said it wasn't included with the scripture by Paul as profitable for doctrine.

The only thing Paul says is inspired by God to be profitable for doctrine, in that text, is scripture alone.

Scripture ALONE.

The word is implicit, not explicit. I never said the word alone was there, i said its logical it is, because only scripture is so described as being entirely profitable for doctrine.

But that rules out any possibility liturgy is being included by Paul. He speaks of the bible ALONE.


How can you even say Scripture alone is profitable? It's a patently false claim on the face of it. If I get spiritual nourishment from something, if it helps me get closer to God and behave better toward my fellow man, then is it not "profitable" by definition? So many things have nourished me without being straight up expositions of Scripture; podcasts, books by Christian and even secular authors, the lives of the Saints, conversations with friends, even philosophy to the extent I see God in it. And let's not even get in to what I get out of the beauty of nature. I'd say all these things have been quite profitable to me-despite having often only a tangential relationship to the written Word.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: LBK on August 12, 2011, 08:12:19 PM
Quote
Having been to numerous Orthodox services now, I've heard more Scripture read in one service than I did in 10 years of a "bible-believing, exegetical-preaching church," so that part is nailed down.

Well done! Pity our friend Alfred stubbornly refuses to see it.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Shiny on August 12, 2011, 08:29:25 PM
theo the Jews were liturgical, there is clear evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls of this.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/baptl.htm
http://www.christianbook.com/dead-scrolls-volume-4b-angelic-liturgy/james-charlesworth/9780664221263/pd/4221262
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: LBK on August 12, 2011, 08:37:13 PM
theo the Jews were liturgical, there is clear evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls of this.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/baptl.htm
http://www.christianbook.com/dead-scrolls-volume-4b-angelic-liturgy/james-charlesworth/9780664221263/pd/4221262

Even if present-day Jewish religious observance were to be ignored, the book of Acts has plenty of instances of the liturgical nature of first-century Jewish worship. And let's not forget the various mentions in the Gospels of Christ Himself serving in Jewish worship. T'weren't aliturgical nor ascriptural, I can tell ya.  ;)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theo philosopher on August 12, 2011, 08:52:55 PM
Thanks to everyone for the liturgical lesson and Scripture. :)

Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theistgal on August 12, 2011, 10:09:14 PM
I hate to say that I am agreeing with Alfred on anything, but in a way, I do see what he is trying to say.

It is true that the Scriptures are the only book (or collection of books) that we can say with certainty is inspired from beginning to end.

That doesn't mean there are not any other books or writings that are inspired, but none of those can be considered in the same category as Scripture.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Shiny on August 12, 2011, 10:20:20 PM
I hate to say that I am agreeing with Alfred on anything, but in a way, I do see what he is trying to say.

It is true that the Scriptures are the only book (or collection of books) that we can say with certainty is inspired from beginning to end.

That doesn't mean there are not any other books or writings that are inspired, but none of those can be considered in the same category as Scripture.
But the problem is the actual context that it is used in.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 12, 2011, 10:26:16 PM
I hate to say that I am agreeing with Alfred on anything, but in a way, I do see what he is trying to say.

It is true that the Scriptures are the only book (or collection of books) that we can say with certainty is inspired from beginning to end.

That doesn't mean there are not any other books or writings that are inspired, but none of those can be considered in the same category as Scripture.

Certainly nobody will debate the special inspiration of scripture. The problem is that Alfred tries to take that further and claim that scripture is the only thing which is profitable for doctrine (and even later he claims that it is the only thing which is profitable for making a man of God complete), when that is clearly not the case.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: biro on August 12, 2011, 10:29:17 PM
Alfred interprets the Bible as he wishes. This is not the practice of the Church. No one will contest the importance of Scripture, but we are not free to readjust it to fit our own opinions.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: LBK on August 12, 2011, 10:58:43 PM
Alfred interprets the Bible as he wishes. This is not the practice of the Church. No one will contest the importance of Scripture, but we are not free to readjust it to fit our own opinions.

BRAVO!!! Give the man a cigar!
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: biro on August 12, 2011, 11:12:57 PM
Thank you.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theistgal on August 12, 2011, 11:55:17 PM
Alfred interprets the Bible as he wishes. This is not the practice of the Church. No one will contest the importance of Scripture, but we are not free to readjust it to fit our own opinions.

Absolutely! I'm not saying he's right about everything else. Just sorta like the proverbial stopped clock that's right twice a day.  ;D
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: xariskai on August 13, 2011, 02:22:41 AM
Unfair!

You cannot insist I answer a precise argument, and then refuse to tell me what it is.
Alfred, the moderators are correct that you are dodging arguments without replying. Could you reply specifically to the following? (third request; note particularly the material in bold).

You say Christ taught His disciples sola scriptura (only a written text) before the resurrection -the only written text at that time having been the OT. It seems, however, that the disciples did and taught many things not explicitly found in any written scriptural text, for many years (before there was any New Testament). Were they disobeying sola scriptura at that time to teach so many things not in any written text, and if not how not?

Quote from: xariskai
First of all, when Peter and John were before the Sanhedrin in Acts 5 **NO NT BOOK HAD BEEN WRITTEN YET**. Answer me this riddle. During the period before the NT was written, what scriptural passage in the OT (remember, there is no NT yet, but according to you the disciples were already under orders from Christ to only follow a written text) told the disciples to baptize? What scriptural passage told them to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit? (if the apostles were to follow ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT, how could they obey Christ unless he wrote his instructions on paper first??). What OT passage told the disciples to witness to "fill Jerusalem with their doctrine" (which they said not doing would be disobedience to God -without a written text available to prove it) or witness to the resurrection? Were they disobeying God in doing and commanding (e.g. in the case of baptism) these (at that time) EXTRA-BIBLICAL THINGS? If there was no scriptural text at that time telling them to fill Jerusalem with their doctrine, on your hypothesis anyone who does something not recorded on paper is disobeying God, Peter and John were disobeying God even as they claimed to be obeying Him.

As for your apparent claim Jesus taught anyone they would be disobeying God unless something was written in scripture, what do you make of this:

Matt 19:20 "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Didn't Christ command His disciples to do things He hadn't written down yet? That no one had ever written down yet?

What scripture ever told anyone to write the New Testament? If the authors of the New Testament were writing, with no explicit scriptural command saying "THOU SHALT WRITE A NEW TESTAMENT..." weren't they doing something "extra-scriptural" in that very act, and on your view, disobeying God in the process since writing a NT isn't commanded in the OT?

Think about your absolutism; it leads to ridiculous consequences unless you make literally thousands of exceptions. And yet if even ONE exception must be admitted for any reason whatsoever, your apparent view that one must obey ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT refutes itself.

Esegetically speaking you are importing a hidden assumption into almost every text you cite, e.g. in the Acts text "obey God" = "obey written scripture and nothing whatsoever beyond written scripture." Can you not see the texts in Acts and the Gospels you cited in the OP don't really refer to written scripture explicitly and that, rather, you are inferring this?

Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet.snip

You must explain your argument.

I never said sola scriptura was possible before the canon was decided.

Sola verbum dei is the only possible position UNTIL the canon is decided, then sola verbum dei becomes sola scriptura.
Where does scripture say the canon is decided?



It follows from this verse:

 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,
 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
 (Heb 2:3-4 NKJ)

"Was confirmed", past, not present.

It follows only those people could write scripture as God didn't confirm with signs the teaching of anyone after them.


I don't see a reference to "deciding the canon" in that verse. Where is it exactly?

Wasn't deciding the canon an extra-biblical decision? (extra-scriptura) Where does it say in scripture which books to include as scripture, and where does it say "that's all folks, no other books will be written after this one?"

Where does scripture say your (inconsistent) "required interim period" before verbum dei becomes verbum scriptura is suddenly over such that no more books or letters may be added to the scriptural corpus?  

I don't see any reason you have "Dodged" the questions in black' if there is a reason I'd like to know what it is.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 13, 2011, 02:55:11 AM
And don't forget John 21:25.

Quote
And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Thankful on August 14, 2011, 02:37:56 AM
Alfred, if I were to say, "All exercise ... is profitable ... that the man of God may enjoy complete health", would you argue that "Only exercise is necessary for my health. All of those other rules about eating properly, quitting smoking, getting plenty of rest are just man-made rules that mean nothing"?

If you read St Paul's other letter to Timothy, you will find (chapter 4):
"8 For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come." (NKJV)

Ecclesiastes 7:11 "Wisdom is good with an inheritance, And profitable to those who see the sun." (NKJV)

Scripture is not the only thing that is profitable for the man of God.

Exactly.  Of course Scripture is profitable, just like exercise is for our health.  It's just not only thing that is profitable. 
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: katherine 2001 on August 14, 2011, 10:01:49 AM
I hate to say that I am agreeing with Alfred on anything, but in a way, I do see what he is trying to say.

It is true that the Scriptures are the only book (or collection of books) that we can say with certainty is inspired from beginning to end.

That doesn't mean there are not any other books or writings that are inspired, but none of those can be considered in the same category as Scripture.

Certainly nobody will debate the special inspiration of scripture. The problem is that Alfred tries to take that further and claim that scripture is the only thing which is profitable for doctrine (and even later he claims that it is the only thing which is profitable for making a man of God complete), when that is clearly not the case.

I agree.  Unfortunately, by cherry picking verses and taking them out of context, you can make the Scriptures support anything you want it to.  Every heretic has used the Scriptures to supposedly show that it supports whatever heretical teaching they are trying to defend.  I wonder if this isn't part of the reason that some Christians are trying to put the Scriptures right up there with the Trinity and actually seem to think that the Scriptures and Christ are one and the same.  After all, it is much easier to manipulate a book than it is a Person.  If the Scriptures are the only guide, it is so much easier to make up your own Jesus by just ignoring the passages that you don't like (and this happens all the time).  If a passage doesn't conform to your view of Christ, just pretend it isn't there. 
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theistgal on August 14, 2011, 11:31:29 AM
Unfair!

You cannot insist I answer a precise argument, and then refuse to tell me what it is.
Alfred, the moderators are correct that you are dodging arguments without replying. Could you reply specifically to the following? (third request; note particularly the material in bold).

I don't think Alfred is able to reply right now, due to moderator actions.  Perhaps in charity we could hold off asking him questions till he's back.  :)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 14, 2011, 09:56:29 PM
Yeah.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: pasadi97 on August 16, 2011, 02:06:15 PM
1. I hope yopu understand Word of God is Jesus and not Bible:

JN 1:14 The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

2. If Sola scriptura would be true, then there would be no protestant books beside Bible. Also I hope you realize that luther, calcin, protestantism and others are not in Bible thus not necessary for salvation.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theistgal on August 16, 2011, 03:50:38 PM
1. I hope yopu understand Word of God is Jesus and not Bible:

JN 1:14 The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

2. If Sola scriptura would be true, then there would be no protestant books beside Bible. Also I hope you realize that luther, calcin, protestantism and others are not in Bible thus not necessary for salvation.

Who is "calcin"?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 16, 2011, 05:21:05 PM
I think he means Calvin.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: primuspilus on August 17, 2011, 09:16:34 AM
This whole thread is an exposition of why everyone should not be allowed to interpret scripture.

PP
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Melodist on August 17, 2011, 09:27:41 AM
This whole thread is an exposition of why everyone should not be allowed to interpret scripture.

PP

This is actually one of the things that turned me away from sola scriptura - two people using the same exact verse to "prove" mutually exclusive points in direct opposition to each other.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: primuspilus on August 17, 2011, 10:32:26 AM
Quote
This is actually one of the things that turned me away from sola scriptura - two people using the same exact verse to "prove" mutually exclusive points in direct opposition to each other.

Yeah I was actually a huge sola scriptura guy until I stopped and thought about it, while putting aside the usual arguments. Once I realized how out of place they really were once history and a little bit of logic got thrown into the mix that house of cards fell pretty fast.

PP
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: JLatimer on August 17, 2011, 11:02:41 AM
This whole thread is an exposition of why everyone should not be allowed to interpret scripture.

PP

This is actually one of the things that turned me away from sola scriptura - two people using the same exact verse to "prove" mutually exclusive points in direct opposition to each other.

This wouldn't be such a big problem in and of itself if Protestants didn't also want to maintain a traditional Christian stance on the Holy Spirit, truth, and unity of the Church. What I mean is that in Judaism, for example, the whole Mishnah is basically a series of arguments between two directly opposing viewpoints. But this is the Jewish understanding of truth. It is said the rabbis will keep on debating Torah in heaven for all eternity. But Christianity, while tolerant of wide disagreement on a range of matters, is not open to this level of systematic disagreement on the fundamentals (hence, our history of creedal statements). It's in the Christian Scriptures that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, that we must be of one mind, etc. Protestants acknowledge that. They want to skirt the issue that comes up with sola scriptura of a text being open to myriad interpretations by claiming the Holy Spirit directs believers in interpretation of the Scriptures. The question for me then becomes, why is the Holy Spirit inspiring confusion and disunity. If two Protestants have mutually exclusive opposing viewpoints, it seems to me it stands to reason that at least one of them lacks the Holy Spirit, because God is not the author of confusion. Of course they try to get around this by continually trimming down the list of "fundamentals" as more and more disagreements arise.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theistgal on August 17, 2011, 06:27:34 PM
I think he means Calvin.

What about Hobbes?

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_if3dk3Os7yg/THyMx-L8AVI/AAAAAAAAJAI/ApZLoP_zM_E/s1600/calvinandhobbes.jpg)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Cavaradossi on August 17, 2011, 06:45:49 PM
I think he means Calvin.

What about Hobbes?

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_if3dk3Os7yg/THyMx-L8AVI/AAAAAAAAJAI/ApZLoP_zM_E/s1600/calvinandhobbes.jpg)

What did Hobbes believe about Salvation?  :D
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: orthonorm on August 17, 2011, 07:28:25 PM
This whole thread is an exposition of why everyone should not be allowed to interpret scripture.

PP

Everybody is.

All reading is an interpretation. Within a horizon you will never be able to make fully transparent.

Everyone interprets whatever they understand for themselves within the inarticulable nexus of relationships which bear down up them.

If everything was so obviously, we wouldn't have a million different, billion different opinions within and without the Church.

Sola Scriptura is either everything or it is nothing.

Whichever you choose it is the same choice.

Tradition is Scripture. Scripture Tradition.

This is why EO needs a real engagement with real "Western" thinking.

The alfies of the world wouldn't be so troubling and their claims would fail at the level of ontology, but so would most of the counter-arguments traditionally given, as they are just the other side of the coin.

Tradition only exists within Scripture and Scripture within Tradition.

Time to say good-bye to those "Western" dualisms.

You are welcome.





Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: akimori makoto on August 17, 2011, 07:48:00 PM
This whole thread is an exposition of why everyone should not be allowed to interpret scripture.

PP

Everybody is.

All reading is an interpretation. Within a horizon you will never be able to make fully transparent.

Everyone interprets whatever they understand for themselves within the inarticulable nexus of relationships which bear down up them.

If everything was so obviously, we wouldn't have a million different, billion different opinions within and without the Church.

Sola Scriptura is either everything or it is nothing.

Whichever you choose it is the same choice.

Tradition is Scripture. Scripture Tradition.

This is why EO needs a real engagement with real "Western" thinking.

The alfies of the world wouldn't be so troubling and their claims would fail at the level of ontology, but so would most of the counter-arguments traditionally given, as they are just the other side of the coin.

Tradition only exists within Scripture and Scripture within Tradition.

Time to say good-bye to those "Western" dualisms.

You are welcome.

You might be making a more rarefied point than I am capable of grasping at this time of the morning, but I have always taken the view that the Most Holy Scriptures are nothing other than the Apostolic Tradition (or part of it) crystallised in writing. Tradition, then, precedes Scripture, I agree, but I have trouble following the equation in the reverse direction, if you know what I mean?

I don't like it when people say we have two sources of doctrine: Scripture and Tradition. Rather, the source of our doctrine is the Apostolic Tradition alone, of which the Holy Scriptures are, inextricably, inevitably and irreversibly, a part.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 17, 2011, 08:44:46 PM
I think what norm is saying, and this is a thought I've had from time to time, is that Protestants implicitly believe this as well. The problem comes when they perceive a contradiction between one part of Tradition and another (say, icons vs. the second commandment or synergeia vs. Paul in Romans). They react to this to concluding one part of Tradition is defective and so lop it off and retreat to Scripture alone, not realizing that if there was really a contradiction like that then the whole edifice would fall written and oral alike.

Thus within Protestantism a false dichotomy between Scripture and oral tradition is born with one being perfect and the other suspect. norm is saying we Orthodox need to quit buying into this reasoning implicitly as we argue with Protestants, instead we need to return to consistently declaring the oneness of all Holy Tradition.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: akimori makoto on August 17, 2011, 08:57:06 PM
I think what norm is saying, and this is a thought I've had from time to time, is that Protestants implicitly believe this as well. The problem comes when they perceive a contradiction between one part of Tradition and another (say, icons vs. the second commandment or synergeia vs. Paul in Romans). They react to this to concluding one part of Tradition is defective and so lop it off and retreat to Scripture alone, not realizing that if there was really a contradiction like that then the whole edifice would fall written and oral alike.

Thus within Protestantism a false dichotomy between Scripture and oral tradition is born with one being perfect and the other suspect. norm is saying we Orthodox need to quit buying into this reasoning implicitly as we argue with Protestants, instead we need to return to consistently declaring the oneness of all Holy Tradition.

I agree. I think that squares with my post, though.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: theistgal on August 17, 2011, 10:10:56 PM
What did Hobbes believe about Salvation?  :D

I know he wasn't a big fan of Pascal's Wager:

(http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/ch/2009/ch090204.gif)
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 17, 2011, 10:45:20 PM
LOL
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: primuspilus on August 18, 2011, 10:35:14 AM
Quote
Everybody is.

All reading is an interpretation. Within a horizon you will never be able to make fully transparent.

Everyone interprets whatever they understand for themselves within the inarticulable nexus of relationships which bear down up them.

If everything was so obviously, we wouldn't have a million different, billion different opinions within and without the Church.

Sola Scriptura is either everything or it is nothing.

Whichever you choose it is the same choice.

Tradition is Scripture. Scripture Tradition.

This is why EO needs a real engagement with real "Western" thinking.

The alfies of the world wouldn't be so troubling and their claims would fail at the level of ontology, but so would most of the counter-arguments traditionally given, as they are just the other side of the coin.

Tradition only exists within Scripture and Scripture within Tradition.

Time to say good-bye to those "Western" dualisms.

You are welcome.

Perhaps interpret isnt the right word. .....

PP
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: FatherGiryus on August 18, 2011, 11:02:52 AM
The problems with Sola Scriptura is that a number, if not a majority, of its proponents don't understand the concept at all.  That's due, in large part, with its seemingly absolute standard, that of 'only,' with its original and scholarly meaning, 'mostly.'

An intelligent proponent, or at least one who has thought through the matter, would see that one cannot even read the Scriptures without some kind of external reference points: dictionaries, history books, psychological dispositions, etc.  What the wise discern is that the Scriptural interpretation should agree with itself and the Scriptures should not give conflicting interpretation.  Tradition is the preservation of that historical process.  Sola Scriptura was an attempt to go back through the Tradition to eliminate certain abuses of this process in the Western context (not a dig on Westerners, but that's the historical context).

The problem is that Luther's out-loud internal dialog, as with most of the Reformers, led to a great many bab-and-bathwater scenarios.  Eventually, even Luther regretted breaking off from the RCC.  Notably, his own brand of 'Lutheranism' looked far more like the Roman Church that the modern Fundivangelist Pop-Rock congregation of today.

Sadly, Alfred, in my opinion, believed in a great many things that he was simply not able to reasonably discuss.  When I studied at Fuller, I met a number of Sola Scriptura proponents that were super-intelligent and anyone of us, including me, would have a great challenge in debating.  Alfred could not exchange ideas, could not answer questions, and could not refrain from losing his temper.

Pity.

For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.  For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”  But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.  For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.  But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.  Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.  Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.  Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.
(Ga 5:13-25)


This whole thread is an exposition of why everyone should not be allowed to interpret scripture.

PP

Everybody is.

All reading is an interpretation. Within a horizon you will never be able to make fully transparent.

Everyone interprets whatever they understand for themselves within the inarticulable nexus of relationships which bear down up them.

If everything was so obviously, we wouldn't have a million different, billion different opinions within and without the Church.

Sola Scriptura is either everything or it is nothing.

Whichever you choose it is the same choice.

Tradition is Scripture. Scripture Tradition.

This is why EO needs a real engagement with real "Western" thinking.

The alfies of the world wouldn't be so troubling and their claims would fail at the level of ontology, but so would most of the counter-arguments traditionally given, as they are just the other side of the coin.

Tradition only exists within Scripture and Scripture within Tradition.

Time to say good-bye to those "Western" dualisms.

You are welcome.






Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: biro on August 18, 2011, 03:14:46 PM
Father, bless.

Very true.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: orthonorm on August 18, 2011, 03:18:10 PM
This whole thread is an exposition of why everyone should not be allowed to interpret scripture.

PP

Everybody is.

All reading is an interpretation. Within a horizon you will never be able to make fully transparent.

Everyone interprets whatever they understand for themselves within the inarticulable nexus of relationships which bear down up them.

If everything was so obviously, we wouldn't have a million different, billion different opinions within and without the Church.

Sola Scriptura is either everything or it is nothing.

Whichever you choose it is the same choice.

Tradition is Scripture. Scripture Tradition.

This is why EO needs a real engagement with real "Western" thinking.

The alfies of the world wouldn't be so troubling and their claims would fail at the level of ontology, but so would most of the counter-arguments traditionally given, as they are just the other side of the coin.

Tradition only exists within Scripture and Scripture within Tradition.

Time to say good-bye to those "Western" dualisms.

You are welcome.

You might be making a more rarefied point than I am capable of grasping at this time of the morning, but I have always taken the view that the Most Holy Scriptures are nothing other than the Apostolic Tradition (or part of it) crystallised in writing. Tradition, then, precedes Scripture, I agree, but I have trouble following the equation in the reverse direction, if you know what I mean?

I don't like it when people say we have two sources of doctrine: Scripture and Tradition. Rather, the source of our doctrine is the Apostolic Tradition alone, of which the Holy Scriptures are, inextricably, inevitably and irreversibly, a part.

Maybe I'll amplify later.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Shiny on August 20, 2011, 01:33:50 AM
So how about that Byebull
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: neon_knights on August 21, 2011, 07:34:38 AM
This is the one real area that has been tripping me up lately.

I think, that it makes perfect sense that if a new doctrine were to be established, there should be nothing in Scripture that overtly contradicts it. That is what  Sola Scriptura means to me.

At face level, it does seem that Christ's critiques of the Pharisees and their traditions have a sort of parallel to Church Tradition. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but it just seems scarily similar.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Melodist on August 21, 2011, 07:46:41 AM
I think, that it makes perfect sense that if a new doctrine were to be established, there should be nothing in Scripture that overtly contradicts it.

Without going into the concept of "new doctrine"...

Who has the authority to decide what is or is not contradictory to scripture when it is properly read and interpreted?

Sola scriptura has nothing to with the bible. It's a denial of the Church's authority to teach all nations "to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you".

I agree that doctrine should not contradict scripture, but I also believe that scripture bears witness to the Church's teaching authority.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: J.M.C on August 21, 2011, 07:51:25 AM
I think, that it makes perfect sense that if a new doctrine were to be established, there should be nothing in Scripture that overtly contradicts it.

Yes, this is true. Reading the Church Father's words on Scriptures leaves no doubts as to their holiness, and importance in testing all things against the writings of Moses, the Prophets, David, Solomon, the Evangelists and the Apostles.

That is what  Sola Scriptura means to me.

But it is not what Sola Scriptura appears to mean in most situations. A perfect example would be the Dormition of the Mother of God. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura might demand "where is this story in Scripture??", when of course it won't be because the Gospels pre-date the Theotokos' repose. By your standards of sola scriptura, the Dormition account does not contradict what is in Scriptures. The same is true of any part of Holy Tradition - it doesn't contradict what is written in the Scriptures. I would warn against calling this sola scriptura though, as it might end up giving you false friends among those who hold an entirely different practice in applying the Scriptures to our lives.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: neon_knights on August 21, 2011, 07:59:30 AM
I think, that it makes perfect sense that if a new doctrine were to be established, there should be nothing in Scripture that overtly contradicts it.

Yes, this is true. Reading the Church Father's words on Scriptures leaves no doubts as to their holiness, and importance in testing all things against the writings of Moses, the Prophets, David, Solomon, the Evangelists and the Apostles.

That is what  Sola Scriptura means to me.

But it is not what Sola Scriptura appears to mean in most situations. A perfect example would be the Dormition of the Mother of God. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura might demand "where is this story in Scripture??", when of course it won't be because the Gospels pre-date the Theotokos' repose. By your standards of sola scriptura, the Dormition account does not contradict what is in Scriptures. The same is true of any part of Holy Tradition - it doesn't contradict what is written in the Scriptures. I would warn against calling this sola scriptura though, as it might end up giving you false friends among those who hold an entirely different practice in applying the Scriptures to our lives.

No, the Dormition does not contradict scripture.

But the RC doctrine of Assumption does IMO. Saying that the Theotokos could be bodily assumed into heaven without first dying physically is basically placing her at the level of a goddess. Scripture states that everyone dies, and that should include the Virgin IMO.

That is a perfect example of how a tradition can go against scripture.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: J.M.C on August 21, 2011, 08:06:01 AM
It is an example of the difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy on the same subject: The Dormition. Why the false teaching you mention is a tradition in Catholicism and not part of tradition in Orthodoxy reflects two different approaches to authority and Holy Tradition. Your posts here and in the thread you started seem to be more against Roman Catholic "tradition" than Orthodox "tradition". The latter I believe to be Sacred Tradition.

On the tradition surround the Mother of God's dormition, the reason we believe that the Theotokos died is because.... we do actually believe this is what happened, from the accounts handed down to us. It's not because in the Bible it says "everyone dies" that we believe the Mother of God died, but because the tradition handed down to us says that she died and was buried; that the tradition handed down to us agrees with Scripture simply confirms its veracity. Again I will emphasize this is not sola scriptura. Saying "everyone dies, therefore Mary died" and then building up a narrative around it would be sola scriptura (and a quite impossible thing to do).
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: biro on August 21, 2011, 08:06:43 AM
Quote from: neon_knights
But the RC doctrine of Assumption does IMO. Saying that the Theotokos could be bodily assumed into heaven without first dying physically is basically placing her at the level of a goddess. Scripture states that everyone dies, and that should include the Virgin IMO.

That is a perfect example of how a tradition can go against scripture.

Wrong. The Prophet Elijah was swept into Heaven without first bodily dying on Earth. Nobody has ever said this is wanting to worship him like a God.

It seems almost anything will lead some people to make inferences and put words in the mouths of Roman Catholics.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: J.M.C on August 21, 2011, 08:15:07 AM
Wrong. The Prophet Elijah was swept into Heaven without first bodily dying on Earth.

Swept up "as if" into Heaven, according to the Septuagint.
That the Mother of God first died before being taken up into Heaven is an extremely important and informative fact about her, and much can be derived from it.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 21, 2011, 10:56:26 AM
I think, that it makes perfect sense that if a new doctrine were to be established, there should be nothing in Scripture that overtly contradicts it.

Yes, this is true. Reading the Church Father's words on Scriptures leaves no doubts as to their holiness, and importance in testing all things against the writings of Moses, the Prophets, David, Solomon, the Evangelists and the Apostles.

That is what  Sola Scriptura means to me.

But it is not what Sola Scriptura appears to mean in most situations. A perfect example would be the Dormition of the Mother of God. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura might demand "where is this story in Scripture??", when of course it won't be because the Gospels pre-date the Theotokos' repose. By your standards of sola scriptura, the Dormition account does not contradict what is in Scriptures. The same is true of any part of Holy Tradition - it doesn't contradict what is written in the Scriptures. I would warn against calling this sola scriptura though, as it might end up giving you false friends among those who hold an entirely different practice in applying the Scriptures to our lives.

No, the Dormition does not contradict scripture.

But the RC doctrine of Assumption does IMO. Saying that the Theotokos could be bodily assumed into heaven without first dying physically is basically placing her at the level of a goddess. Scripture states that everyone dies, and that should include the Virgin IMO.

That is a perfect example of how a tradition can go against scripture.
I'm not aware that the Catholic dogma of the Assumption teaches that Mary never died.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Severian on August 21, 2011, 11:24:58 AM
"...And through the prayers of the 224 God-bearing Fathers of the [insert number here]th ecumenical council at OC.net, who refuted the heresy of Perssonism"

OK, bad joke, but still... :P

Btw, this post wasn't supposed to be an ad hominem towards Alfred Persson, but the "Perssonism" tag inspired me. ;D
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 21, 2011, 01:09:45 PM
I think, that it makes perfect sense that if a new doctrine were to be established, there should be nothing in Scripture that overtly contradicts it.

Yes, this is true. Reading the Church Father's words on Scriptures leaves no doubts as to their holiness, and importance in testing all things against the writings of Moses, the Prophets, David, Solomon, the Evangelists and the Apostles.

That is what  Sola Scriptura means to me.

But it is not what Sola Scriptura appears to mean in most situations. A perfect example would be the Dormition of the Mother of God. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura might demand "where is this story in Scripture??", when of course it won't be because the Gospels pre-date the Theotokos' repose. By your standards of sola scriptura, the Dormition account does not contradict what is in Scriptures. The same is true of any part of Holy Tradition - it doesn't contradict what is written in the Scriptures. I would warn against calling this sola scriptura though, as it might end up giving you false friends among those who hold an entirely different practice in applying the Scriptures to our lives.

No, the Dormition does not contradict scripture.

But the RC doctrine of Assumption does IMO. Saying that the Theotokos could be bodily assumed into heaven without first dying physically is basically placing her at the level of a goddess. Scripture states that everyone dies, and that should include the Virgin IMO.

That is a perfect example of how a tradition can go against scripture.
I'm not aware that the Catholic dogma of the Assumption teaches that Mary never died.
So-called Immortalism is a fringe belief AFAICT, but the RCC never dogmatized against it.
Wrong. The Prophet Elijah was swept into Heaven without first bodily dying on Earth.

Swept up "as if" into Heaven, according to the Septuagint.
That the Mother of God first died before being taken up into Heaven is an extremely important and informative fact about her, and much can be derived from it.
How about Enoch?
That is a perfect example of how a tradition can go against scripture.
How do you know what contradicts Scripture and what doesn't? I'm not trying to be glib, this really seems to me to be the heart of the matter.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Melodist on August 21, 2011, 01:48:38 PM
No, the Dormition does not contradict scripture.

But the RC doctrine of Assumption does IMO.

It's the same thing, the only difference is they tie it into the IC and we haven't formally dogmatized it even though it is most definitely a part of our Tradition.

Kontakion of the Dormition (copied from church bulletin)
Neither the tomb, nor death, could hold the Theotokos, who is constant in prayer and our firm hope in her intercessions. For being the Mother of Life, she was translated to life by the One who dwelt in her virginal womb!

Quote
Saying that the Theotokos could be bodily assumed into heaven without first dying physically is basically placing her at the level of a goddess. Scripture states that everyone dies, and that should include the Virgin IMO.

First, the papal bull dogmatizing the assumption explicitly states that her body was assumed into heaven after her death. Second, Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dieing.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: biro on August 21, 2011, 06:09:48 PM
Thanks, that was well put.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 21, 2011, 08:02:59 PM
First, the papal bull dogmatizing the assumption explicitly states that her body was assumed into heaven after her death. Second, Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dieing.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=232146

Quote from: RC Apologist, Michelle Arnold
Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus, does not define that the Blessed Virgin died, only that she "completed the course of her earthly life" (MD 44). Only the specific definition of the Assumption in paragraph 44 of Munificentissimus Deus is the infallible proclamation; the rest of the document is commentary. Although many theologians believe that the Virgin Mary did die, the Church is officially silent on the matter.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Shiny on August 21, 2011, 08:32:51 PM
First, the papal bull dogmatizing the assumption explicitly states that her body was assumed into heaven after her death. Second, Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dieing.
I've always wondered why Enoch didn't appear in the Transfiguration of Christ.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 21, 2011, 08:43:47 PM
First, the papal bull dogmatizing the assumption explicitly states that her body was assumed into heaven after her death. Second, Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dieing.
I've always wondered why Enoch didn't appear in the Transfiguration of Christ.
Moses represents the Law.
Elijah represents the Prophets.
What does Enoch represent that Jesus would call him to appear with Himself on Mount Tabor?
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Shiny on August 21, 2011, 08:59:56 PM
First, the papal bull dogmatizing the assumption explicitly states that her body was assumed into heaven after her death. Second, Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dieing.
I've always wondered why Enoch didn't appear in the Transfiguration of Christ.
Moses represents the Law.
Elijah represents the Prophets.
What does Enoch represent that Jesus would call him to appear with Himself on Mount Tabor?
Maybe part of the genealogy. It is interesting that he is the 7th son of Adam though.

But my comment was hoping for something more about him during Christ's ministry. I guess it ain't important.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Melodist on August 21, 2011, 09:10:35 PM
First, the papal bull dogmatizing the assumption explicitly states that her body was assumed into heaven after her death. Second, Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dieing.
I've always wondered why Enoch didn't appear in the Transfiguration of Christ.
Moses represents the Law.
Elijah represents the Prophets.
What does Enoch represent that Jesus would call him to appear with Himself on Mount Tabor?

They also represent the living (Elijah) and the dead (Moses). This makes Christ both the fulfillment of the law and the prophets and Lord over the living and the dead.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Shiny on August 21, 2011, 09:12:23 PM
First, the papal bull dogmatizing the assumption explicitly states that her body was assumed into heaven after her death. Second, Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dieing.
I've always wondered why Enoch didn't appear in the Transfiguration of Christ.
Moses represents the Law.
Elijah represents the Prophets.
What does Enoch represent that Jesus would call him to appear with Himself on Mount Tabor?

They also represent the living (Elijah) and the dead (Moses). This makes Christ both the fulfillment of the law and the prophets and Lord over the living and the dead.
I like that representation alot, thank you!
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Melodist on August 21, 2011, 09:50:06 PM
First, the papal bull dogmatizing the assumption explicitly states that her body was assumed into heaven after her death. Second, Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dieing.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=232146

Quote from: RC Apologist, Michelle Arnold
Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus, does not define that the Blessed Virgin died, only that she "completed the course of her earthly life" (MD 44). Only the specific definition of the Assumption in paragraph 44 of Munificentissimus Deus is the infallible proclamation; the rest of the document is commentary. Although many theologians believe that the Virgin Mary did die, the Church is officially silent on the matter.

So only certain parts of an infallible statement are infallible? I apologize for the long post.

Quote from: http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p12munif.htm
5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

17. In the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine Providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded. Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."[11]

18. What is here indicated in that sobriety characteristic of the Roman liturgy is presented more clearly and completely in other ancient liturgical books. To take one as an example, the Gallican sacramentary designates this privilege of Mary's as "an ineffable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin's Assumption is something unique among men." And, in the Byzantine liturgy, not only is the Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption connected time and time again with the dignity of the Mother of God, but also with the other privileges, and in particular with the virginal motherhood granted her by a singular decree of God's Providence. "God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb."[12]

20. However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ's faithful. They presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.

22. These words of St. John Damascene agree perfectly with what others have taught on this same subject. Statements no less clear and accurate are to be found in sermons delivered by Fathers of an earlier time or of the same period, particularly on the occasion of this feast. And so, to cite some other examples, St. Germanus of Constantinople considered the fact that the body of Mary, the virgin Mother of God, was incorrupt and had been taken up into heaven to be in keeping, not only with her divine motherhood, but also with the special holiness of her virginal body. "You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life."[18] And another very ancient writer asserts: "As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him."[19]

28. Thus, during the earliest period of scholastic theology, that most pious man, Amadeus, Bishop of Lausarme, held that the Virgin Mary's flesh had remained incorrupt-for it is wrong to believe that her body has seen corruption-because it was really united again to her soul and, together with it, crowned with great glory in the heavenly courts. "For she was full of grace and blessed among women. She alone merited to conceive the true God of true God, whom as a virgin, she brought forth, to whom as a virgin she gave milk, fondling him in her lap, and in all things she waited upon him with loving care."[26]

35. In like manner St. Francis of Sales, after asserting that it is wrong to doubt that Jesus Christ has himself observed, in the most perfect way, the divine commandment by which children are ordered to honor their parents, asks this question: "What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after her death if he could?"[38] And St. Alphonsus writes that "Jesus did not wish to have the body of Mary corrupted after death, since it would have redounded to his own dishonor to have her virginal flesh, from which he himself had assumed flesh, reduced to dust."[39]

39. We must remember especially that, since the second century, the Virgin Mary has been designated by the holy Fathers as the new Eve, who, although subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium,[44] would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death which are always mentioned together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles.[45] Consequently, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and the final sign of this victory, so that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her divine Son should be brought to a close by the glorification of her virginal body, for the same Apostle says: "When this mortal thing hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory."[46]

42. We, who have placed our pontificate under the special patronage of the most holy Virgin, to whom we have had recourse so often in times of grave trouble, we who have consecrated the entire human race to her Immaculate Heart in public ceremonies, and who have time and time again experienced her powerful protection, are confident that this solemn proclamation and definition of the Assumption will contribute in no small way to the advantage of human society, since it redounds to the glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, to which the Blessed Mother of God is bound by such singular bonds. It is to be hoped that all the faithful will be stirred up to a stronger piety toward their heavenly Mother, and that the souls of all those who glory in the Christian name may be moved by the desire of sharing in the unity of Jesus Christ's Mystical Body and of increasing their love for her who shows her motherly heart to all the members of this august body. And so we may hope that those who meditate upon the glorious example Mary offers us may be more and more convinced of the value of a human life entirely devoted to carrying out the heavenly Father's will and to bringing good to others. Thus, while the illusory teachings of materialism and the corruption of morals that follows from these teachings threaten to extinguish the light of virtue and to ruin the lives of men by exciting discord among them, in this magnificent way all may see clearly to what a lofty goal our bodies and souls are destined. Finally it is our hope that belief in Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven will make our belief in our own resurrection stronger and render it more effective.
Title: Re: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23
Post by: Volnutt on August 21, 2011, 10:26:46 PM
Yeah, looks like you're right. I'd not read it before.