Topic: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition

[Alfred Persson]

 28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

If tradition can reveal such mystery, then its inspired by God. An analogy:

 22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.[/i]
 (Pro 1:22-23 KJV)


If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So I will give you folks a chance to reveal this mystery using whatever you can, plus your Tradition:

Why did the swine rush into the sea, and perish?

[SolEX01]

The Children of Israel didn't eat swine because swine was unclean.

The demon possessed swine ran into water and perished  ... just like the Egyptians chasing the children of Israel and just as the unclean are baptized and become clean

Christ reminded the Children of Israel that He fulfilled the Law that Moses gave them and the Children of Israel refused to listen.

[LBK]

So, what's your interpretation of this passage, Alfred?

[PeterTheAleut]

28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

If tradition can reveal such mystery, then its inspired by God. An analogy:

 22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.[/i]
 (Pro 1:22-23 KJV)


If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So I will give you folks a chance to reveal this mystery using whatever you can, plus your Tradition:

Why did the swine rush into the sea, and perish?

Sorry, you don't get to set the rules here.

[Alfred Persson]

28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

If tradition can reveal such mystery, then its inspired by God. An analogy:

 22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.[/i]
 (Pro 1:22-23 KJV)


If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So I will give you folks a chance to reveal this mystery using whatever you can, plus your Tradition:

Why did the swine rush into the sea, and perish?

Sorry, you don't get to set the rules here.

I'm not setting rules at all, its called apologetic...I can prove sola scriptura superior to any other methodology for truth.

An analogy:

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
 42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
 44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
 46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
 (Mat 22:41-46 KJV)

That proved Christ's divine insight, He knew the answers to such mysteries, the Pharisees, with their traditions, did not:

It is even so written, those who follow the traditions of men, cannot understand scripture:

 9 Pause and wonder! Blind yourselves and be blind! They are drunk, but not with wine; They stagger, but not with intoxicating drink.
 10 For the LORD has poured out on you The spirit of deep sleep, And has closed your eyes, namely, the prophets; And He has covered your heads, namely, the seers.
 11 The whole vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is literate, saying, "Read this, please." And he says, "I cannot, for it is sealed."
 12 Then the book is delivered to one who is illiterate, saying, "Read this, please." And he says, "I am not literate."
 13 Therefore the Lord said: "Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths And honor Me with their lips, But have removed their hearts far from Me, And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,
 14 Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work Among this people, A marvelous work and a wonder; For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden."
 (Isa 29:9-14 NKJ)


The swine drowning in the sea is a parable, if you know the mystery of God, you can interpret it. If your traditions reveal God's mysteries, then it should present no problem for you:

 11 And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, (Mar 4:11 NKJ)

[LBK]

So, what's your interpretation of this passage, Alfred?

*bump*

[Alfred Persson]

The Children of Israel didn't eat swine because swine was unclean.

The demon possessed swine ran into water and perished  ... just like the Egyptians chasing the children of Israel and just as the unclean are baptized and become clean

Christ reminded the Children of Israel that He fulfilled the Law that Moses gave them and the Children of Israel refused to listen.

But they weren't chasing Christ and His disciples, they were in fear:

 29 And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?" (Mat 8:29 NKJ)

AND running into the water would cause the swine to die, but not them.

So why did this happen. Jesus didn't command it, and it would appear the demons wanted to possess the swine:

 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine." (Mat 8:31 NKJ)

Why would they hurl themselves into the water and lose their new "homes?"

This is a mystery indeed.

Surely your tradition can explain it.

[bogdan]

Trolling is not apologetics. This is a game.

Prediction: Alfred is going to shoot down responses one by one, using badly formatted multicolor Bible verses parsed through his all-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorious Hermaneutic. Then he will declare victory in this contrived game of his. His ego will be stroked and his insecurities will be driven a little farther off. Rinse and repeat.

[edit] I didn't even submit my post and he already did it.

Trolling is a fishing term. It's when you drop multiple hooks in the water and drift around waiting for a bite. That's exactly what you're doing constantly.  See why we call you a troll?  

[Alfred Persson]

So, what's your interpretation of this passage, Alfred?

*bump*

Its too early for that...I must give you folks reasonable time to research this in your tradition, and prove its worth.

[SolEX01]

The Children of Israel didn't eat swine because swine was unclean.

The demon possessed swine ran into water and perished  ... just like the Egyptians chasing the children of Israel and just as the unclean are baptized and become clean

Christ reminded the Children of Israel that He fulfilled the Law that Moses gave them and the Children of Israel refused to listen.

But they weren't chasing Christ and His disciples, they were in fear:

 29 And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?" (Mat 8:29 NKJ)

AND running into the water would cause the swine to die, but not them.

So why did this happen. Jesus didn't command it, and it would appear the demons wanted to possess a living body:

 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine." (Mat 8:31 NKJ)

Why would they hurl themselves into the water and lose their new "homes?"

This is a mystery indeed.

Surely your tradition can explain it.

Should I give you a Tradition based, non "Bible Inerrancy" Answer?  Last paragraph from this site, quoted below:

The life in Christ entails a complete commitment at Holy Baptism and at every moment of time thereafter. Being a Christian is not for the weak of faith. Being a Christian involves every fiber of the person's being...every thought...every action...every decision...every portion of food. Every decision is a decision pleasing to God or an alienation from God. The time of life is to be used with courageous faith directed toward the Kingdom of God.

[Alfred Persson]

Trolling is not apologetics. This is a game.

Prediction: Alfred is going to shoot down responses one by one, using badly formatted multicolor Bible verses parsed through his all-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorious Hermaneutic. Then he will declare victory in this contrived game of his. His ego will be stroked and his insecurities will be driven a little farther off. Rinse and repeat.

[edit] I didn't even submit my post and he already did it.

Trolling is a fishing term. It's when you drop multiple hooks in the water and drift around waiting for a bite. That's exactly what you're doing constantly.  See why we call you a troll?  

Incorrect. BUT any correct interpretation will actually explain this, and not change the subject.

It is a fair test, this is a parable, and if one's methodology results in the Bible being a sealed book, then clearly that methodology is wrong.

Scripture says those who follow traditions of men will not be able to understand the Word of God, the book will be sealed to them:

 9 Pause and wonder! Blind yourselves and be blind! They are drunk, but not with wine; They stagger, but not with intoxicating drink.
 10 For the LORD has poured out on you The spirit of deep sleep, And has closed your eyes, namely, the prophets; And He has covered your heads, namely, the seers.
 11 The whole vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is literate, saying, "Read this, please." And he says, "I cannot, for it is sealed."
 12 Then the book is delivered to one who is illiterate, saying, "Read this, please." And he says, "I am not literate."
 13 Therefore the Lord said: "Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths And honor Me with their lips, But have removed their hearts far from Me, And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,
 14 Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work Among this people, A marvelous work and a wonder; For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden."
 (Isa 29:9-14 NKJ)

AND finally, in answer to your doubts, I'm not the only one reading the replies. If a poster's reply satisfies you all its correct, there is little chance my objection will carry the day.

BUT when I explain the parable, you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request


Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.

And this will prove sola scriptura is the right methodology for interpreting God's Word the Bible.

[SolEX01]

So, what's your interpretation of this passage, Alfred?

*bump*

Its too early for that...I must give you folks reasonable time to research this in your tradition, and prove its worth.

IMHO, your tone is becoming taunting.  Kindly reconsider your position.

[bogdan]

I don't want to commit an ad hominem, but you are more than a little egomaniacal.

Yes please, come down from the mountain like Moses and share with us unwashed masses the mind of God, O enlightened one.   

[Alfred Persson]

So, what's your interpretation of this passage, Alfred?

*bump*

Its too early for that...I must give you folks reasonable time to research this in your tradition, and prove its worth.

IMHO, your tone is becoming taunting.  Kindly reconsider your position.

No taunt in that at all.

Therefore your reply appears strategic---debate strategy, claim offense where none exists, to evade,  to obfuscate, to misdirect.

[Alfred Persson]

I don't want to commit an ad hominem, but you are more than a little egomaniacal.

Yes please, come down from the mountain like Moses and share with us unwashed masses the mind of God, O enlightened one.   

If I don't deliver, you are right.

If I do deliver, then sola scriptura is correct, God gave me this sign, to give to you.

Its for your benefit, not mine.

[Dart]

Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itslef accepting Tradition.

[Alfred Persson]

Scripture says those who follow traditions of men will not be able to understand the Word of God, the book will be sealed to them:

 9 Pause and wonder! Blind yourselves and be blind! They are drunk, but not with wine; They stagger, but not with intoxicating drink.
 10 For the LORD has poured out on you The spirit of deep sleep, And has closed your eyes, namely, the prophets; And He has covered your heads, namely, the seers.
 11 The whole vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is literate, saying, "Read this, please." And he says, "I cannot, for it is sealed."
 12 Then the book is delivered to one who is illiterate, saying, "Read this, please." And he says, "I am not literate."
 13 Therefore the Lord said: "Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths And honor Me with their lips, But have removed their hearts far from Me, And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,
 14 Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work Among this people, A marvelous work and a wonder; For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden."
 (Isa 29:9-14 NKJ)


BUT when I explain the parable, you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.

And this will prove sola scriptura is the right methodology for interpreting God's Word the Bible.

I will give you folks till 0001 Tuesday, PST to find the interpretation of this parable in your tradition.


Sometime after that I will explain the parable, and you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.

And this will be a sign from God sola scriptura is the right methodology for establishing the doctrines of the Christian faith

[Dart]

Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.

[Quinault]

I am fairly sure you are reaching Alfred. You seem like such a caricature, you must be a pseudonym for the Devils Advocate of an Orthodox poster on here.

[Quinault]

I was part of a Protestant Christian message board called "Midrash" at one point (I was also on "Babble-on" and "Babble-rash"). One of the pastors at Mars Hill had a bone to pick with certain issues (specifically masculinity) so he came up with a "character" called "William Wallace II." We ferreted out his real identity fairly fast. Alfred, I imagine your real connection will become apparent soon.

[Dart]

I was part of a Protestant Christian message board called "Midrash" at one point (I was also on "Babble-on" and "Babble-rash"). One of the pastors at Mars Hill had a bone to pick with certain issues (specifically masculinity) so he came up with a "character" called "William Wallace II." We ferreted out his real identity fairly fast. I imagine your real connection will become apparent soon.

This is my only identity.

[Quinault]

I was part of a Protestant Christian message board called "Midrash" at one point (I was also on "Babble-on" and "Babble-rash"). One of the pastors at Mars Hill had a bone to pick with certain issues (specifically masculinity) so he came up with a "character" called "William Wallace II." We ferreted out his real identity fairly fast. I imagine your real connection will become apparent soon.

This is my only identity.

Trying to eliminate yourself from contention for having a Devils Advocate? Or did you think I was directing that comment at you. I should have prefaced that it was meant for Alfred, sorry for any confusion.

[Alfred Persson]

Trying to eliminate yourself from contention for having a Devils Advocate? Or did you think I was directing that comment at you. I should have prefaced that it was meant for Alfred, sorry for any confusion.

I find the Bible infinitely more perspicacious than your writing. I don't believe sound methods of interpretation will actually work with your writing.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what the heck you are saying...I'm already convinced it won't be worth my time, so prove me wrong.

[Quinault]

If the Bible is more interesting, then go read it. I don't claim to write anything even close to the quality of scripture. But I will clarify; you are obviously a caricature. At some point who you are will be clear. Either you are an Orthodox poster playing Devils Advocate, or you are a poster that "left" the board after being caught acting like an idiot and being banned/muted or otherwise ignored. In either case it appears you are having fun. Your bombastic writing voice is slightly amusing. But I don't have the attention span to play anymore, I hope you find another playmate

[Dart]

Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.

I'm playing. But no one will play with me

[Alfred Persson]

Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.

I'm playing. But no one will play with me

Incorrect, sola scriptura is the logical consequence of solum verbum dei which Catholics, including the Orthodox, believe.

Where we differ is what we define as the deposit of the faith, i.e., what constitutes the  "word of God," while you include tradition, we do not.

Both both of us can find solum verbum dei in scripture:

 2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2 NKJ)

The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

 2 "You shall add to the word which I command you, not take from it, that you may keep the commandments we command you.

[Alfred Persson]

If the Bible is more interesting, then go read it. I don't claim to write anything even close to the quality of scripture. But I will clarify; you are obviously a caricature. At some point who you are will be clear. Either you are an Orthodox poster playing Devils Advocate, or you are a poster that "left" the board after being caught acting like an idiot and being banned/muted or otherwise ignored. In either case it appears you are having fun. Your bombastic writing voice is slightly amusing. But I don't have the attention span to play anymore, I hope you find another playmate

I'm not playing.

[Dart]

Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.

I'm playing. But no one will play with me

Incorrect, sola scriptura is the logical consequence of solum verbum dei which Catholics, including the Orthodox, believe.

Where we differ is what we define as the deposit of the faith, i.e., what constitutes the  "word of God," while you include tradition, we do not.

Both both of us can find solum verbum dei in scripture:

 2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2 NKJ)

The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

 2 "You shall add to the word which I command you, not take from it, that you may keep the commandments we command you.

Tradition is the Word of God. Scripture is only that part of Tradition which was written down and accepted by the Church as being true. Accepting scripture is accepting Tradition.

He did say so. You only know what the Church wrote you do not know what He said. Only the Church does.

[Tigran]

Hey Alfred,

I'm a new member of this website. Since I saw your post about the Sola Scriptura and you are rejecting the Holy Tradition. I suggest you to watch at my video about the Holy Tradition before you make comment. Thanks

about the Holy Tradition, the link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYJ44Jz-UWA

In Christ,
Tigran dpir

[Ortho_cat]

I don't want to commit an ad hominem, but you are more than a little egomaniacal.

Yes please, come down from the mountain like Moses and share with us unwashed masses the mind of God, O enlightened one.   

If I don't deliver, you are right.

If I do deliver, then sola scriptura is correct, God gave me this sign, to give to you.

Its for your benefit, not mine.

This sounds very familiar to another poster who has just recently revealed his wisdom to us from on high...

[Ortho_cat]

Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.

Before proceeding any further, Alfred, you must prove to us how this statement is incorrect.

[Michał]

a)why they ran into the lake

But for what intent did the devils destroy the swine? Everywhere they have labored to drive men to dismay, and everywhere they rejoice in destruction. This, for instance, the devil did with respect to Job, although in that case too God suffered it, but neither in that case as complying with the devil, but willing to show His own servant the more glorious, cutting off from the evil spirit all pretext for his shamelessness, and turning on his own head what was done against the righteous man. Because now also the contrary of what they wished came to pass. For the power of Christ was gloriously proclaimed, and the wickedness of the demons, from which He delivered those possessed by them, was more plainly indicated; and how they want power to touch even swine, without permission from the God of all.
And if any would take these things in a hidden sense, there is nothing to hinder. For the history indeed is this, but we are to know assuredly, that the swinish sort of men are especially liable to the operations of the demons. And as long as they are men that suffer such things, they are often able yet to prevail; but if they are become altogether swine, they are not only possessed, but are also cast down the precipice. And besides, lest any should suppose what was done to be mere acting, instead of distinctly believing that the devils were gone out; by the death of the swine this is rendered manifest.
And mark also His meekness together with His power. For when the inhabitants of that country, after having received such benefits, were driving Him away, He resisted not, but retired, and left those who had shown themselves unworthy of His teaching, having given them for teachers them that had been freed from the demons, and the swine-herds, that they might of them learn all that had happened; whilst Himself retiring leaves the fear vigorous in them. For the greatness withal of the loss was spreading the fame of what had been done, and the event penetrated their mind. And from many quarters were wafted sounds, proclaiming the strangeness of the miracle; from the cured, and from the drowned, from the owners of the swine, from the men that were feeding them.

Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XXVIII.html

b)what happened to them after they did

. . .the devils destroy[ed] the swine. . .

Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XXVIII.html

c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Now, should any one say, “And wherefore did Christ fulfill the devils’ request, suffering them to depart into the herd of swine?” this would be our reply, that He did so, not as yielding to them, but as providing for many objects thereby. One, to teach them that are delivered from those wicked tyrants, how great the malice of their insidious enemies: another, that all might learn, how not even against swine are they bold, except He allow them; a third, that they would have treated those men more grievously than the swine, unless even in their calamity they had enjoyed much of God’s providential care. For that they hate us more than the brutes is surely evident to every man. So then they that spared not the swine, but in one moment of time cast them all down the precipice, much more would they have done so to the men whom they possessed, leading them towards the desert, and carrying them away, unless even in their very tyranny the guardian care of God had abounded, to curb and check the excess of their violence. Whence it is manifest that there is no one, who doth not enjoy the benefit of God’s providence. And if not all alike, nor after one manner, this is itself a very great instance of providence; in that according to each man’s profit, the work also of providence is displayed.
And besides what hath been mentioned, there is another thing also, which we learn from this; that His providence is not only over all in common, but also over each in particular; which He also declared with respect to His disciples, saying, “But the very hairs of your head are numbered.” And from these demoniacs too, one may clearly perceive this; who would have “been choked” long before, if they had not enjoyed the benefit of much tender care from above.
For these reasons then He suffered them to depart into the herd of swine, and that they also who dwelt in those places should learn His power. For where His name was great, He did not greatly display Himself: but where no one knew Him, but they were still in an insensible condition, He made His miracles to shine out, so as to bring them over to the knowledge of His Godhead. For it is evident from the event that the inhabitants of that city were a sort of senseless people; for when they ought to have adored and marvelled at His power, they sent Him away, and “besought Him that He would depart out of their coasts.”

Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XXVIII.html

[Iconodule]

I don't want to commit an ad hominem, but you are more than a little egomaniacal.

Yes please, come down from the mountain like Moses and share with us unwashed masses the mind of God, O enlightened one.   

If I don't deliver, you are right.

If I do deliver, then sola scriptura is correct, God gave me this sign, to give to you.

Its for your benefit, not mine.

This sounds very familiar to another poster who has just recently revealed his wisdom to us from on high...

You've definitely got a point there.

[biro]

Yay, another thread! Yay! Oh, wait a minute...

 

 

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.

I'm playing. But no one will play with me

Incorrect, sola scriptura is the logical consequence of solum verbum dei which Catholics, including the Orthodox, believe.

Where we differ is what we define as the deposit of the faith, i.e., what constitutes the  "word of God," while you include tradition, we do not.

Both both of us can find solum verbum dei in scripture:

 2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2 NKJ)

The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

 2 "You shall add to the word which I command you, not take from it, that you may keep the commandments we command you.

Tradition is the Word of God. Scripture is only that part of Tradition which was written down and accepted by the Church as being true. Accepting scripture is accepting Tradition.

He did say so. You only know what the Church wrote you do not know what He said. Only the Church does.

Dart is correct. Alfred is positing a false dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Holy Tradtion come in and through the Church. Sola Scripturists sever the branches (Scripture) from the roots (The Church). Apart from their Life-giving source, the Scriptures become malleable to the subjective interpretations of the individual and individual sects- all claiming to have the proper "hermeneutical principles." We must not forget that satan himself was a skilled biblical apologist.


Selam

[bogdan]

The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

The illogic of your position is that if it's not written in the Bible, it is not from God. While you would disagree, I think that makes the Bible into God, if not in fact, then at least in effect. 

But in fact He did say to follow tradition coequally with scripture, so it matters not.

[bogdan]

I am fairly sure you are reaching Alfred. You seem like such a caricature, you must be a pseudonym for the Devils Advocate of an Orthodox poster on here.

You would think so, but Alfred K. Persson's views have found their way elsewhere. As much of a caracature he is, I'm pretty sure he's legit.

[Fr. David]

Greetings, Alfred.  I'm a bit late in coming, but welcome to the forum.

I'll simply post the commentary of a prominent commentator on the Scriptures, Theophylact of Ochrid, followed by a word of my own:

]Re: vv. 26-33:

"See how the demon is torn between two wicked passions: impudence and fear. When he says, What have I to do with Thee? he shows the impudence of a shameless slave; when he says, I beseech Thee, he shows his fear. He was dwelling among the tombs because he wanted to instill in men the false suspicion that the souls of those who have died become demons. The demons ask not to be cast into the abyss, but that they be permitted to remain a while longer upon the earth. The Lord permits them to remain upon the earth so that they might fight and contend with men, and thus render men tested veterans. If man had no adversaries, there would be no struggles and contests; and if there were no contests, there would be no crowns of victory. There is a more spiritual sense which you should learn as well: the man who has demons within him and wears no garment and makes his home outside the house, is anyone who does evil and demonic deeds, who has stripped himself of his baptismal robe, and dwells outside the Church. Such a man is not worthy to enter into the Church, but instead he lives in the tombs of dead and rotting deeds, for example, in brothels and in the chambers of publicans and graft. These are indeed tombs of iniquity."

Re: vv. 34-39:

"When those who had been feeding the swine fled into the city, it became an opportunity for salvation for the Gadarenes, but they did not understand. They ought to have marvelled at the Saviour’s power and believed in Him. The Evangelist says that they besought Him to depart from them, instead of calling upon Him in supplication. They did this out of fear of suffering another loss like that of the swine. But the man who had been healed shows indisputable proof of his healing. That he had been healed in his mind is shown by the fact that he now both recognizes Jesus and begs His permission to be with Him. For he was afraid, it would seem, that the demons would again easily assault him when he was separated from Jesus. But the Lord shows him that even if he is not with Jesus, the Lord’s grace can shelter him from demonic attack. The Lord says to him, Return to thine own house, and tell what great things God hath done unto thee. By not saying, "what great things I have done unto thee," the Lord gives us an example of humility and teaches us that we should attribute all our accomplishments to God. But though the Lord had commanded him to tell what things God had done for him, he told instead what things Jesus had done for him, so great was his gratitude. Therefore when you do something good for someone, do not desire it to become public knowledge; but he who is the beneficiary of that good deed ought to be moved by gratitude to tell it to others, even though you do not want him to do so."

SOURCE: http://www.chrysostompress.org/gospel-commentary-pentecost23

A further note:

Your questions seem to betray a position wherein a passage of Scripture has a single, solitary meaning.  As can be seen, the commentaries of Chrysostom Mike quoted and the commentary of Theophylact stress different parts of the pericope and go about explaining it differently; I would ask whether or not you think the Scriptures so shallow that they bear only one interpretation: the one you claim to be able to exegete for us.  I would say that the Scriptures are in inexhaustible fount of divine wisdom, fully able to provide myriad interpretations for the faithful on literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical levels. 

Thus, the waters that drowned the pigs could be seen as:

• The literal ceasing of those demons' tormenting of creation at that time (literal)
• The casting out of the unclean spirits being trampled down in the waters of baptism (allegorical, as per the Serbian Orthodox page you quoted)
• A warning to the faithful to avoid the unclean, alienating passions which would take us from the right mind in Christ and enslave us to unclean, destructive passions (moral)
• A reminder that the Lord will subject the demons and all ungodliness to Himself at the end of days, just as He has subjected "many waters" (including the primordial waters that were often objects of Near Eastern Deity habitation, hence the reference to the sea in the pericope) under Him as the inferior, created reality that it is (anagogical).

Thank you for participating here.  Let us not seek to insult or run to our own conclusions here, nor to treat each other preemptively as those who are hopelessly and inevitably doomed to arrive at error, but in Christian charity, let us assume the image of God to be at least present, and sensitive to illumination that this conversation may, potentially, give.

Peace.

[GreekChef]

I will give you folks till 0001 Tuesday, PST to find the interpretation of this parable in your tradition.


Sometime after that I will explain the parable, and you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.

And this will be a sign from God sola scriptura is the right methodology for establishing the doctrines of the Christian faith

Why would we listen to a word you say when you obviously don't even know what a parable is?  This PERICOPE is NOT a parable.  It actually happened.  A PARABLE is a story that is told in order to illustrate a truth, but did not actually happen, such as that of the Prodigal Son.  Looks like you need to go back to basics.

[Orthodoc]

Trolling is not apologetics. This is a game.

Prediction: Alfred is going to shoot down responses one by one, using badly formatted multicolor Bible verses parsed through his all-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorious Hermaneutic. Then he will declare victory in this contrived game of his. His ego will be stroked and his insecurities will be driven a little farther off. Rinse and repeat.

[edit] I didn't even submit my post and he already did it.

Trolling is a fishing term. It's when you drop multiple hooks in the water and drift around waiting for a bite. That's exactly what you're doing constantly.  See why we call you a troll?  

Incorrect. BUT any correct interpretation will actually explain this, and not change the subject.

It is a fair test, this is a parable, and if one's methodology results in the Bible being a sealed book, then clearly that methodology is wrong.

Scripture says those who follow traditions of men will not be able to understand the Word of God, the book will be sealed to them:

 9 Pause and wonder! Blind yourselves and be blind! They are drunk, but not with wine; They stagger, but not with intoxicating drink.
 10 For the LORD has poured out on you The spirit of deep sleep, And has closed your eyes, namely, the prophets; And He has covered your heads, namely, the seers.
 11 The whole vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is literate, saying, "Read this, please." And he says, "I cannot, for it is sealed."
 12 Then the book is delivered to one who is illiterate, saying, "Read this, please." And he says, "I am not literate."
 13 Therefore the Lord said: "Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths And honor Me with their lips, But have removed their hearts far from Me, And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,
 14 Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work Among this people, A marvelous work and a wonder; For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden."
 (Isa 29:9-14 NKJ)

AND finally, in answer to your doubts, I'm not the only one reading the replies. If a poster's reply satisfies you all its correct, there is little chance my objection will carry the day.

BUT when I explain the parable, you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request


Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.

And this will prove sola scriptura is the right methodology for interpreting God's Word the Bible.

Gee I can't wait!!!!!

Orthodoc

[Alfred Persson]

I will give you folks till 0001 Tuesday, PST to find the interpretation of this parable in your tradition.


Sometime after that I will explain the parable, and you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.

And this will be a sign from God sola scriptura is the right methodology for establishing the doctrines of the Christian faith

Why would we listen to a word you say when you obviously don't even know what a parable is?  This PERICOPE is NOT a parable.  It actually happened.  A PARABLE is a story that is told in order to illustrate a truth, but did not actually happen, such as that of the Prodigal Son.  Looks like you need to go back to basics.

Who told you its impossible God tell a parable, using actors on His stage?

This event teaches lessons, but only to those who are His, those on the outside, look but cannot see...can make no sense of it.

So, tell us:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

[Alfred Persson]

Greetings, Alfred.  I'm a bit late in coming, but welcome to the forum.

I'll simply post the commentary of a prominent commentator on the Scriptures, Theophylact of Ochrid, followed by a word of my own:

]Re: vv. 26-33:

"See how the demon is torn between two wicked passions: impudence and fear. When he says, What have I to do with Thee? he shows the impudence of a shameless slave; when he says, I beseech Thee, he shows his fear. He was dwelling among the tombs because he wanted to instill in men the false suspicion that the souls of those who have died become demons. The demons ask not to be cast into the abyss, but that they be permitted to remain a while longer upon the earth. The Lord permits them to remain upon the earth so that they might fight and contend with men, and thus render men tested veterans. If man had no adversaries, there would be no struggles and contests; and if there were no contests, there would be no crowns of victory. There is a more spiritual sense which you should learn as well: the man who has demons within him and wears no garment and makes his home outside the house, is anyone who does evil and demonic deeds, who has stripped himself of his baptismal robe, and dwells outside the Church. Such a man is not worthy to enter into the Church, but instead he lives in the tombs of dead and rotting deeds, for example, in brothels and in the chambers of publicans and graft. These are indeed tombs of iniquity."

Re: vv. 34-39:

"When those who had been feeding the swine fled into the city, it became an opportunity for salvation for the Gadarenes, but they did not understand. They ought to have marvelled at the Saviour’s power and believed in Him. The Evangelist says that they besought Him to depart from them, instead of calling upon Him in supplication. They did this out of fear of suffering another loss like that of the swine. But the man who had been healed shows indisputable proof of his healing. That he had been healed in his mind is shown by the fact that he now both recognizes Jesus and begs His permission to be with Him. For he was afraid, it would seem, that the demons would again easily assault him when he was separated from Jesus. But the Lord shows him that even if he is not with Jesus, the Lord’s grace can shelter him from demonic attack. The Lord says to him, Return to thine own house, and tell what great things God hath done unto thee. By not saying, "what great things I have done unto thee," the Lord gives us an example of humility and teaches us that we should attribute all our accomplishments to God. But though the Lord had commanded him to tell what things God had done for him, he told instead what things Jesus had done for him, so great was his gratitude. Therefore when you do something good for someone, do not desire it to become public knowledge; but he who is the beneficiary of that good deed ought to be moved by gratitude to tell it to others, even though you do not want him to do so."

SOURCE: http://www.chrysostompress.org/gospel-commentary-pentecost23

A further note:

Your questions seem to betray a position wherein a passage of Scripture has a single, solitary meaning.  As can be seen, the commentaries of Chrysostom Mike quoted and the commentary of Theophylact stress different parts of the pericope and go about explaining it differently; I would ask whether or not you think the Scriptures so shallow that they bear only one interpretation: the one you claim to be able to exegete for us.  I would say that the Scriptures are in inexhaustible fount of divine wisdom, fully able to provide myriad interpretations for the faithful on literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical levels.  

Thus, the waters that drowned the pigs could be seen as:

• The literal ceasing of those demons' tormenting of creation at that time (literal)
• The casting out of the unclean spirits being trampled down in the waters of baptism (allegorical, as per the Serbian Orthodox page you quoted)
• A warning to the faithful to avoid the unclean, alienating passions which would take us from the right mind in Christ and enslave us to unclean, destructive passions (moral)
• A reminder that the Lord will subject the demons and all ungodliness to Himself at the end of days, just as He has subjected "many waters" (including the primordial waters that were often objects of Near Eastern Deity habitation, hence the reference to the sea in the pericope) under Him as the inferior, created reality that it is (anagogical).

Thank you for participating here.  Let us not seek to insult or run to our own conclusions here, nor to treat each other preemptively as those who are hopelessly and inevitably doomed to arrive at error, but in Christian charity, let us assume the image of God to be at least present, and sensitive to illumination that this conversation may, potentially, give.

Peace.

Very interesting, I will return for more comment later, right now I must attend to business.

But while I am gone, perhaps you can answer this one question, re "a position wherein a passage of Scripture has a single, solitary meaning."

So, rather than "make sense of Scripture," you say "make senses of it."

If you asked me where I was at 10am yesterday, and I gave you multiple locations, in effect making senses of your question, did you learn anything useful?

Answer that, and later I will address your post more fully, later.

cya

[GabrieltheCelt]

Hi Alfred,

 You sure seem to be a great student of the Reformation, I'll give you that.  Though the Reformation certainly is to be admired (when in it's proper historical context) when placed alongside the Holy Traditions of the Orthodox Church it is easily shown to be quite erroneous.   One of the problems in accepting our position over the Reformation is one of (seemingly) betrayal.  In accepting our position over your own is to (seemingly, from your POV) to wound our savior.  I know that you have a great love for Jesus Christ, and that you are here only to show His love to us.  That is to be commended.  

 We, too, Alfred, love Jesus Christ.  Not only as God, but as our King and our Lord.  We constantly pray to Him, giving thanks and asking for His help.  In fact, one of our most loved prayers is known as the Arrow Prayer, or, more commonly as the Jesus Prayer:
 
 

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."

 The first part of this prayer is one of acknowledgment:  Jesus is the Son of God and He is Lord over our lives.  The second half is one of supplication.  In acknowledging Who He is, we now ask that He forgives us sinners.

 If you can accept the fact that we acknowledge who Jesus is and that we also love Him and struggle to obey Him, then we can go forward with the discussion.  If you feel that we do not, then I'm not so sure that you will be able to hear our message.  Never-the-less, we will continue and try.

 Rather than re-post the article, I'll give you the URL and let you read it at your leisure.

 1. Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?  By Fr. James Bernstein

      http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/whichcamefirst.aspx

 2. Sola Scriptura: In the Vanity of Their Minds By Fr. John Whiteford
  
     http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx

 3. On Holy Scripture By Elder Cleopa of Romania

     http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_holy_scripture.aspx

 4. On Holy Tradition By Elder Cleopa of Romania

     http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_holy_tradition.aspx

  
 If you are as serious as you present yourself to be (as I believe you are) and not just another lazy armchair apologist, you will give these publications serious considerations.  

 

  

[bogdan]

perhaps you can answer this one question, re "a position wherein a passage of Scripture has a single, solitary meaning."

So, rather than "make sense of Scripture," you say "make senses of it."

If you asked me where I was at 10am yesterday, and I gave you multiple locations, in effect making senses of your question, did you learn anything useful?

Your analogy is flawed. A person cannot physically be in two places at once. But a story can have meaning on multiple different levels. Even ones that seem contradictory on the surface, at times. Orthodoxy is not a western-rational philosophy of forensic discovery and reconstruction. We definitely have no problem with paradox, as our beliefs are full of it. As I've said all along, the problem is with your expectations, not our answers.

I know someone (a "Jewish Christian" type) who went to Hebrew University in Israel, and studied under some rabbis while he was there, and they told him "Every passage has 70 facets." That means every verse can mean multiple different things simultaneously. Jews recognize this, Orthodox Christians recognize this.

That you believe every passage has one and only one meaning, and you know what it is, shows that you do not understand Eastern Religion, which Christianity is.

[Dart]

The reason for the development of Sola Scriptura was as a defense against the claims of the Pope as being infallible. We fully agree with the Protestant Tradition in the regard to the Pope's heresy. But you must also see that claiming for yourself infallibility is also equally in error. Infallibility comes from the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ said when two or more are gathered in my name. Not an individual and not when we are gathered for our own glorification and pride.