OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 08:42:13 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What is Sola Scriptura?  (Read 12153 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« on: May 09, 2011, 09:42:55 AM »

Sola Scriptura means only Bible. It means take 1 billion historical documents about Christianity and Early Church, take Bible from them and throw everything out of window. Then if something is not in the Bible use your imagination. Because imagination vary, there are 30000 Protestant denominations.

Allow me please to use, Sola Herodotus in telling how Columbus discovered America.

Columbus took 7 Portavions with 300 turbojets and they come to America. Then they spotted an Amerindian Passenger plane and understood that they are close to a new land. Why are you laughing? This is protestantism and you can not combate me because how Columbus discovered New Land is not in Herodotus, the only document I recognize. everything else I already throw out of the window.
Logged
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2011, 09:48:12 AM »

The problem is that beside sound teachings, protestantism may have lost food for eternal life John 6:53 . All Churches before 1500 had it and if you think that until Protestantism invention , that happen 1500+ years from the time of Jesus,  all Churches were wrong , think again:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35988.0.html
« Last Edit: May 09, 2011, 09:54:06 AM by pasadi97 » Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,239



« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2011, 10:13:10 AM »

I'm sure Ebor and Keble tire of this, so let me give it a shot...

Because imagination vary, there are 30000 Protestant denominations.

Says who? Source? Smiley
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2011, 10:24:14 AM »

Ok, over 30 000 Protestant denominations.
 According to World Christian Encyclopedia, there are "over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries," having increased in number from 8,196 in 1970. Every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations.[12]

The new message is this:
"Sola Scriptura means only Bible. It means take 1 billion historical documents about Christianity and Early Church, take Bible from them and throws everything out of window. Then if something is not in the Bible use your imagination. Because imagination vary, there are OVER 30000 Protestant denominations.

Allow me please to use, Sola Herodotus in telling how Columbus discovered America.

Columbus took 7 Portavions with 300 turbojets and they come to America. Then they spotted an Amerindian Passenger plane and understood that they are close to a new land. Why are you laughing? This is protestantism and you can not combate me because how Columbus discovered New Land is not in Herodotus, the only document I recognize. everything else I already throw out of the window."

Because Protestantism has not food for eternal life and Eastern Orthodox Christianity has, the process of conversion from Orthodoxy to Protestantism might be named killing of souls.  This may amount to a great sin. Anyhow if there are people that did this, undoing it would be greatly appreciated like by spreading this: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35988.0.html I hope you understand the consequence of Eve eating from death tree and the consequence of learning people don't listen to John 6:53 Johny, or Martin or Luther or Calvin said words or nothing or symbols is enough.

The way Jesus established would be to become Orthodox Christian and go to confession.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2011, 10:38:49 AM by pasadi97 » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2011, 10:35:45 AM »

Your definition of "Sola Scriptura" will vary depending on who you ask. Not defending it, just syaing it means something different, for example, to a Lutheran than it does to a Pentecostal.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2011, 11:28:03 AM »

Hi Melodist. Can you develop on your idea?

another problem with protestantiwsm is that their Churches are started by Luther, Calvin aka men that are not able to give eternal life , however eastern orthodox Christianity is started by Jesus. All theb Churches people read in Bible are today Eastern Orthodox Christian.

Ok, over 30 000 Protestant denominations.
 According to World Christian Encyclopedia, there are "over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries," having increased in number from 8,196 in 1970. Every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations.[12]

The new message is this:
"Sola Scriptura means only Bible. It means take 1 billion historical documents about Christianity and Early Church, take Bible from them and throws everything out of window. Then if something is not in the Bible use your imagination. Because imagination vary, there are OVER 30000 Protestant denominations.

Allow me please to use, Sola Herodotus in telling how Columbus discovered America.

Columbus took 7 Portavions with 300 turbojets and they come to America. Then they spotted an Amerindian Passenger plane and understood that they are close to a new land. Why are you laughing? This is protestantism and you can not combate me because how Columbus discovered New Land is not in Herodotus, the only document I recognize. everything else I already throw out of the window."

Because Protestantism has not food for eternal life and Eastern Orthodox Christianity has, the process of conversion from Orthodoxy to Protestantism maybe might be named killing of souls.  This may amount to a great sin. Anyhow if there are people that did this, undoing it would be greatly appreciated like by spreading this: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35988.0.html I hope you understand the consequence of Eve eating from death tree and the consequence of learning people don't listen to John 6:53 Johny, or Martin or Luther or Calvin said words or nothing or symbols is enough.

The way Jesus established would be to become Orthodox Christian and go to confession.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2011, 11:28:59 AM by pasadi97 » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2011, 11:29:45 AM »

If you are Orthodox, it means how anyone else who reads the Bible who disagrees with you or your favorite Church Father.
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2011, 11:35:56 AM »

Bible is inspired by God so God know best what is in the Bible. So a man, true to this conviction asked God for how the Bible should be interpreted and God sent apostle paul, hundreds years after his death to help and based on this interpretation based on revelation, Orthodox Church interprets the Bible.
Man name= St John Chrysostom and if you read his omilies or the homilies of St Theophylact based on St John Chrysostom interpretation you can see Orthodox interpretation.
Logged
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2011, 11:38:31 AM »

If you are Orthodox, it means how anyone else who reads the Bible who disagrees with you or your favorite Church Father.
If you are Protestant, it means that homosexuality is wrong but eating shellfish is oh-so-good.
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2011, 11:48:33 AM »

Hi Melodist. Can you develop on your idea?

What I am saying is that some Protestants read the fathers and regard them very highly, but view scripture as having more authority than men. Luther and Calvin both used some of St Augustine's writings to support some of their views. Also some protestants will quote St John Chrysostom's exortation to read scripture as a defense of Sola Scriptura.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are Protestants who do not believe in using creeds or reading fathers at all, regrdless of what they might have to say. Scripture becomes the only thing that can have any value.

There is also the Protestant debate on whether or not to acceot or reject things that they don't see explicitly spelled out in scripture. "It's not there so we don't do it" vs. "It doesn't tell us not to so it's ok."

Like I said, I'm not supporting Sola Scriptura, only saying that different Protestant denominations understand the doctrine itself differently.

Quote
another problem with protestantiwsm is that their Churches are started by Luther, Calvin aka men that are not able to give eternal life , however eastern orthodox Christianity is started by Jesus.

I agree 100%.

Quote
All theb Churches people read in Bible are today Eastern Orthodox Christian.

Except for Rome.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2011, 12:06:47 PM »

Melodist is right about the different theories of sola scriptura. The one thread they have in common is that the hold that church teachings (and by extension any theological statement) can and must be tested against scripture; also in almost all cases they hold that what cannot be proven from scripture cannot be held as doctrine.

Since I'm feeling pedantic I'll have to insist that no church which appears in scripture is Eastern Orthodox. It's a simple case of anachronism: one cannot really hold the churches to adherence to the Nicene Creed until it had in fact been formulated.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2011, 12:09:06 PM »

While I'm at it: we've been over the Barrett numbers before, and the short form is that 33,000 does not represent the number of Protestant sects. It includes all the Orthodox churches as well, and Barrett's counting method appears to severely inflate the total.
Logged
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2011, 12:31:33 PM »

All the Churches you read about in Bible, Except Church of Rome have a history, and by reading that history we find them in Eastern orthodox Church today.

Church tradition is not thin air, is the 1 billion historical valid documents that protestantism chooses to throw to the window.

See, some Protestantism groups saw that Sola scriptura is not good and they don't respect it either by giving credit to St John Chrysostom and creeds.

anyhow, sola Scriptura say we test everything by Bible. Ok test Protestantism by the Bible.Show me whnere Martin Luther and Reformation is in the Bible? It is not so Protestantism is invalid through the rules it supports. The sad part is that they renounced to food for eternal life, end they are not even aware of this.

Sola Scriptura means only Bible. It means take 1 billion historical documents about Christianity and Early Church, take Bible from them and throw everything out of window. Then if something is not in the Bible use your imagination. Because imagination vary, there are 30000 Protestant denominations.

Allow me please to use, Sola Herodotus in telling how Columbus discovered America.

Columbus took 7 Portavions with 300 turbojets and they come to America. Then they spotted an Amerindian Passenger plane and understood that they are close to a new land. Why are you laughing? This is protestantism and you can not combate me because how Columbus discovered New Land is not in Herodotus, the only document I recognize. everything else I already throw out of the window.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2011, 01:24:03 PM »

Since I'm feeling pedantic I'll have to insist that no church which appears in scripture is Eastern Orthodox.

If you follow all the church communities mentioned in the NT through history, you will find that those communities that have survived through history, with the exception of Rome, are in fact Orthodox.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,627


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2011, 01:50:15 PM »

Since I'm feeling pedantic I'll have to insist that no church which appears in scripture is Eastern Orthodox.

If you follow all the church communities mentioned in the NT through history, you will find that those communities that have survived through history, with the exception of Rome, are in fact Orthodox.
Except the ACotE. But I don't know if they really fall under "survived".
« Last Edit: May 09, 2011, 01:50:39 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

"...you are the orphan, not the protagonist."

-St. Seraphim of Vyritsa, 'This was from me'
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2011, 02:07:44 PM »

Except the ACotE. But I don't know if they really fall under "survived".

Who, in the NT, is the ACE the continuation of? Just curious.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Red A.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 188


« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2011, 02:50:12 PM »


Sola Scriptura declares that in 2000 years, no one has had anything of value to say about the bible or Christian life until I picked up the bible. Simple hogwash.

This is actually something of a resentment for me. Raised on Sola Scriptura I feel I have been denied many very useful teachings for almost 50 years.  There are many of those teachings that would have made my life a much better place to live that it was without them.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,627


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2011, 02:55:03 PM »

Except the ACotE. But I don't know if they really fall under "survived".

Who, in the NT, is the ACE the continuation of? Just curious.
I assume the Aramean Jews, evangelized by St. Paul and St. Thomas. I thought you meant "NT Church" not things explicitly mentioned in the NT.
Logged

"...you are the orphan, not the protagonist."

-St. Seraphim of Vyritsa, 'This was from me'
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2011, 03:00:26 PM »

Except the ACotE. But I don't know if they really fall under "survived".

Who, in the NT, is the ACE the continuation of? Just curious.
I assume the Aramean Jews, evangelized by St. Paul and St. Thomas. I thought you meant "NT Church" not things explicitly mentioned in the NT.

I was looking more at specific communities metioned, other wise I would have mentioned the Ethipoian eunuch. How many of those Jews would have continued in our Jerusalem and Antiochian patriarchates?
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2011, 04:13:30 PM »

Sola Scriptura declares that in 2000 years, no one has had anything of value to say about the bible or Christian life until I picked up the bible.

Well, not really. Nobody does theology that way, even if they think they do. And most churches which profess some adherence to sola scriptura do acknowledge some sort of theological tradition. But they all say that this tradition can be tested against scripture.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2011, 04:17:29 PM »

Since I'm feeling pedantic I'll have to insist that no church which appears in scripture is Eastern Orthodox.

If you follow all the church communities mentioned in the NT through history, you will find that those communities that have survived through history, with the exception of Rome, are in fact Orthodox.

No, I don't acknowledge that. There isn't any Orthodoxy, capital O, until Nicea. Churches before that may not have, probably didn't teach anything contrary to Nicea, but they didn't teach what they council taught either. Orthodoxy as that particular category was not meaningful until Orthodox doctrine was set forth as such.
Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,239



« Reply #21 on: May 09, 2011, 04:20:52 PM »

No, I don't acknowledge that. There isn't any Orthodoxy, capital O, until Nicea. Churches before that may not have, probably didn't teach anything contrary to Nicea, but they didn't teach what they council taught either. Orthodoxy as that particular category was not meaningful until Orthodox doctrine was set forth as such.

I suppose you wouldn't be worthy of the title "Arch-Protestant" if you didn't think this...  Undecided
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2011, 06:09:59 PM »

I'm sure Ebor and Keble tire of this, so let me give it a shot...

Because imagination vary, there are 30000 Protestant denominations.

Says who? Source? Smiley

I've never understood why people get upset with this number. Even 1000 is too many, and no matter how you spin the definition of the word denomination, there aren't that many Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

I consider Anglicans a bit of a special case, anyway.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2011, 06:12:41 PM »

Sola Scriptura declares that in 2000 years, no one has had anything of value to say about the bible or Christian life until I picked up the bible.

Well, not really. Nobody does theology that way, even if they think they do. And most churches which profess some adherence to sola scriptura do acknowledge some sort of theological tradition. But they all say that this tradition can be tested against scripture.

Keble, surely what matters is what they are actually doing, not what they say they are doing?
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2011, 06:13:46 PM »

Since I'm feeling pedantic I'll have to insist that no church which appears in scripture is Eastern Orthodox.

If you follow all the church communities mentioned in the NT through history, you will find that those communities that have survived through history, with the exception of Rome, are in fact Orthodox.

No, I don't acknowledge that. There isn't any Orthodoxy, capital O, until Nicea. Churches before that may not have, probably didn't teach anything contrary to Nicea, but they didn't teach what they council taught either. Orthodoxy as that particular category was not meaningful until Orthodox doctrine was set forth as such.

If "Orthodox" doesn't work for you, how about One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic?
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,239



« Reply #25 on: May 09, 2011, 06:25:22 PM »

I've never understood why people get upset with this number. Even 1000 is too many, and no matter how you spin the definition of the word denomination, there aren't that many Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

I consider Anglicans a bit of a special case, anyway.

Not that it's a huge deal to me, but the main thing about this is that many of these high numbers also count Orthodox Churches as seperate Churches (or, actually, separate denominations), which obviously the Orthodox wouldn't agree with. And it makes me wonder how accurate the number is, what criteria they are using to determine who counts as a separate demonination, etc. I agree with you that any divisions are bad, but I think we can just say that without throwing out these big, round numbers that sound like they support our argument, but which may not be really that accurate.
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,379



« Reply #26 on: May 09, 2011, 07:39:09 PM »

I've never understood why people get upset with this number. Even 1000 is too many, and no matter how you spin the definition of the word denomination, there aren't that many Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

I consider Anglicans a bit of a special case, anyway.

Not that it's a huge deal to me, but the main thing about this is that many of these high numbers also count Orthodox Churches as seperate Churches (or, actually, separate denominations), which obviously the Orthodox wouldn't agree with. And it makes me wonder how accurate the number is, what criteria they are using to determine who counts as a separate demonination, etc. I agree with you that any divisions are bad, but I think we can just say that without throwing out these big, round numbers that sound like they support our argument, but which may not be really that accurate.
I've bolded the part that I want to specifically address. In general, I agree with what you've said. Unfortunately we Orthodox are at times a bit smug about our unity that is visible only to us. Even as we look at those who post regularly here on OCdotnet we see that we are divided by administrative issues that keep us from sharing communion.

But overall, that's one of the things I appreciate about this forum. We do see that we are united in our Orthodox faith, even where administrative and "denominational" issues separate us. Please note I'm using the word "denominational" as having to do with the names which we place on our church signs. Interestingly, I sometimes find myself having more in common with those who self-identify as "Old Calendar" and as OO than some who self-identify as EO. I think it shows that there is diversity in Orthodoxy within our unity.

It's also true that many of those numerous Protestant groups are not as divided - as they perceive themselves - as some who post here would have us believe.
Logged
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #27 on: May 09, 2011, 08:22:01 PM »

Why do people care about Protestantism, Islam, Hinduism, Budhism when these religions do not care about people, leaving people without food for eternal life.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2011, 08:22:27 PM by pasadi97 » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,911


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 09, 2011, 08:55:19 PM »

Or long screeds about it.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #29 on: May 09, 2011, 09:00:41 PM »

Since I'm feeling pedantic I'll have to insist that no church which appears in scripture is Eastern Orthodox.

If you follow all the church communities mentioned in the NT through history, you will find that those communities that have survived through history, with the exception of Rome, are in fact Orthodox.

No, I don't acknowledge that. There isn't any Orthodoxy, capital O, until Nicea. Churches before that may not have, probably didn't teach anything contrary to Nicea, but they didn't teach what they council taught either. Orthodoxy as that particular category was not meaningful until Orthodox doctrine was set forth as such.

By your definition, the NT Church died with the last apostle. When the church in Antioch accepted the first council, it didn't cease to be the community that it had previously been as established by the apostles, or when it accepted the second, or the third, or the seventh, or the council concerning Palamism, or the Jerusalem council called in defense of Protestant influence on the Church. Whether you acknowledge it or not, Doesn't change the fact that the community founded by Ss Peter and Paul in Antioch still survives under the current leadership of His Holiness Ignatius IV, as one example.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Thankful
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 263



« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2011, 09:54:15 PM »


one cannot really hold the churches to adherence to the Nicene Creed until it had in fact been formulated.




....Churches before [Nicea] may not have, probably didn't teach anything contrary to Nicea, but they didn't teach what they council taught either.


Keble, you keep saying "churches" -- but there was only one church.  The Church, not "the churches."  A small point, but an important distinction, I think. 
Logged

pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #31 on: May 09, 2011, 11:44:20 PM »

I am not writting this against you, but for you so you can partake eternal life and become immortal.
 
The problem is that beside sound teachings, protestantism may have lost food for eternal life John 6:53 . All Churches before 1500 had it and if you think that until Protestantism invention , that happen 1500+ years from the time of Jesus,  all Churches were wrong , think again:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35988.0.html
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,406


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #32 on: May 10, 2011, 01:05:39 AM »

Ok, over 30 000 Protestant denominations.
 According to World Christian Encyclopedia, there are "over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries," having increased in number from 8,196 in 1970. Every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations.[12]
Just as you were asked on another board to provide links to all the material you appear to have copied from other online sources, so I'm adding this to the list of texts for which you must provide links. You have until the end of the time allotted you for the other links required of you.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2011, 01:06:52 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 10, 2011, 03:08:41 AM »

Sola Scriptura means only Bible. It means take 1 billion historical documents about Christianity and Early Church, take Bible from them and throw everything out of window. Then if something is not in the Bible use your imagination.


It's not really that simple. In a way it is, but in another way it isn't. It may differ depending on what protestant family you are talking about.

To Lutherans, Sola Scriptura is pretty much interpreting the Bible according to what Dr. Martin Luther said. And so you will get a combination of using the Church Fathers and church councils in some areas, but not in other areas. Where they agree with Luther's interpretation of the text then they will use them, but where they differ......well, they will argue with them and scream Sola Scriptura.


To the Reformed and Calvinists it's interpreting the Bible according to what Zwingli, John Calvin, John Calvin's systematic theology, and the systematic theologies of all those who followed in his footsteps had to say. And so they will use other authorities as long as they agree with their interpretations of Scripture, if they don't then they will argue with them and scream Sola Scriptura.


Some of the other protestant groups are more fractured and consistent when it comes to the logical conclusions and implications of Sola Scriptura. For them, it comes closer to however the individual interprets the text and the individual will use any other authority like the church fathers or creeds that agrees with their personal interpretation of the text. However, if the church fathers and creeds disagree with them then they will argue with the fathers and councils and scream Sola Scriptura!

« Last Edit: May 10, 2011, 03:11:31 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #34 on: May 10, 2011, 09:56:30 AM »

By your definition, the NT Church died with the last apostle. When the church in Antioch accepted the first council, it didn't cease to be the community that it had previously been as established by the apostles, or when it accepted the second, or the third, or the seventh, or the council concerning Palamism, or the Jerusalem council called in defense of Protestant influence on the Church. Whether you acknowledge it or not, Doesn't change the fact that the community founded by Ss Peter and Paul in Antioch still survives under the current leadership of His Holiness Ignatius IV, as one example.

That doesn't address what I said. Organizational continuity is its own issue, as I'll get to in a minute, but I wasn't addressing that. Rather, I was looking at doctrinal continuity. And the reality is that it doesn't go all the way back. Ideally we want to meet two standards: that we positively teach what was taught in apostolic times, and that what we teach isn't inconsistent with what was taught in those days. These comprise, in part if not in toto, the standard of sola scriptura. Nearly all of Protestantism--and indeed, the deviants such as the JWs are oft excluded because of their heresy on this point--holds that the Nicene Creed can be defended from scripture, though it isn't stated outright. But there came a point at which it had to be formulated, and if you back up into NT times it hadn't been formulated, and indeed the issue had not yet been presented. That doesn't mean that the church(es) at that time believed something at odds with the Creed, but that the Creed had not become a defining characteristic. That is what I meant by saying that it was not (yet) Orthodox.

There has been a great deal of theological and practical elaboration since AD 70. Protestantism arises out of the realization/theory/heresy (take your pick) that late medieval Catholic practice (and the theology behind it) had evolved so as to pick up a number of abuses. OK, well, where to start in criticizing them? Well, at the very least one could say that scripture, not having evolved, could serve as a touchstone. That principle is what lies behind all the various versions of sola scriptura. After that there is a great deal of disagreement, partly over exactly how it is to be applied as a test, but also because of the various Protestant interpretive traditions. The Eastern churches really don't figure in this except to the degree to which they reflect medieval western practice and theology-- which they do to a very great degree.
Logged
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,568


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 10, 2011, 10:07:21 AM »

I've never understood why people get upset with this number. Even 1000 is too many, and no matter how you spin the definition of the word denomination, there aren't that many Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

I consider Anglicans a bit of a special case, anyway.

Not that it's a huge deal to me, but the main thing about this is that many of these high numbers also count Orthodox Churches as seperate Churches (or, actually, separate denominations), which obviously the Orthodox wouldn't agree with. And it makes me wonder how accurate the number is, what criteria they are using to determine who counts as a separate demonination, etc. I agree with you that any divisions are bad, but I think we can just say that without throwing out these big, round numbers that sound like they support our argument, but which may not be really that accurate.

The number is still high, even if you took the incorrect measure of including Orthodox out of that equation.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #36 on: May 10, 2011, 11:37:28 AM »

Since I'm feeling pedantic I'll have to insist that no church which appears in scripture is Eastern Orthodox.

Hear hear. The churches mentioned in the bible are all Catholic.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #37 on: May 10, 2011, 11:39:52 AM »

I'm sure Ebor and Keble tire of this, so let me give it a shot...

Because imagination vary, there are 30000 Protestant denominations.

Says who? Source? Smiley

A more meanful statistic is that there are more than 30,000 non-Catholic denominations. I trust this will convince everyone of the need for the papacy for unity.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #38 on: May 10, 2011, 02:43:01 PM »

By your definition, the NT Church died with the last apostle. When the church in Antioch accepted the first council, it didn't cease to be the community that it had previously been as established by the apostles, or when it accepted the second, or the third, or the seventh, or the council concerning Palamism, or the Jerusalem council called in defense of Protestant influence on the Church. Whether you acknowledge it or not, Doesn't change the fact that the community founded by Ss Peter and Paul in Antioch still survives under the current leadership of His Holiness Ignatius IV, as one example.

That doesn't address what I said. Organizational continuity is its own issue, as I'll get to in a minute, but I wasn't addressing that. Rather, I was looking at doctrinal continuity. And the reality is that it doesn't go all the way back. Ideally we want to meet two standards: that we positively teach what was taught in apostolic times, and that what we teach isn't inconsistent with what was taught in those days. These comprise, in part if not in toto, the standard of sola scriptura. Nearly all of Protestantism--and indeed, the deviants such as the JWs are oft excluded because of their heresy on this point--holds that the Nicene Creed can be defended from scripture, though it isn't stated outright. But there came a point at which it had to be formulated, and if you back up into NT times it hadn't been formulated, and indeed the issue had not yet been presented. That doesn't mean that the church(es) at that time believed something at odds with the Creed, but that the Creed had not become a defining characteristic. That is what I meant by saying that it was not (yet) Orthodox.

There has been a great deal of theological and practical elaboration since AD 70. Protestantism arises out of the realization/theory/heresy (take your pick) that late medieval Catholic practice (and the theology behind it) had evolved so as to pick up a number of abuses. OK, well, where to start in criticizing them? Well, at the very least one could say that scripture, not having evolved, could serve as a touchstone. That principle is what lies behind all the various versions of sola scriptura. After that there is a great deal of disagreement, partly over exactly how it is to be applied as a test, but also because of the various Protestant interpretive traditions. The Eastern churches really don't figure in this except to the degree to which they reflect medieval western practice and theology-- which they do to a very great degree.

Did all the communities mentioned in the NT all of a sudden change their beliefs in 325? Orthodoxy is and has always been about preserving correct doctrine as it is handed down and maintaining continuity. Council, creeds, etc are only expressions of what has always been believed in order to clarify the truth when errors arise. Protestantism isn't based on preserving what has been handed down, but correcting and changing (at least at one point in history or another) what was handed down. I will give the reformers credit as far as the tradition they did receive did have errors and did need to be reformed, but making changes according to what you think the faith should be instead of looking for the living continuity (or accepting the idea that it wasn't there) of what Christ gave the Church through His apostles was and still is an error in and of itself.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #39 on: May 10, 2011, 03:16:30 PM »

Did all the communities mentioned in the NT all of a sudden change their beliefs in 325?

"All of a sudden" is your phrase, and "change" I would repudiate if you mean I implied that they specifically disowned trinitarian doctrine before 325. But yes, there was a change. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that; doctrinal development isn't ipso facto bad.
Logged
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,947


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #40 on: May 10, 2011, 03:41:41 PM »

A more meanful statistic is that there are more than 30,000 non-Catholic denominations. I trust this will convince everyone of the need for the papacy for unity.

I think Orthodox Christians will need a bit more convincing.  We're convinced our non-papal unity is niftier.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2011, 03:48:20 PM »

A more meanful statistic is that there are more than 30,000 non-Catholic denominations. I trust this will convince everyone of the need for the papacy for unity.

I think Orthodox Christians will need a bit more convincing.  We're convinced our non-papal unity is niftier.

Really? So the existence of 30,000 non-Catholic denominations doesn't seem like a problem to you??


That's alright, actually: my last 2 posts were about 20% serious and 80% satirical.

Since I'm feeling pedantic I'll have to insist that no church which appears in scripture is Eastern Orthodox.

Hear hear. The churches mentioned in the bible are all Catholic.

I'm sure Ebor and Keble tire of this, so let me give it a shot...

Because imagination vary, there are 30000 Protestant denominations.

Says who? Source? Smiley

A more meanful statistic is that there are more than 30,000 non-Catholic denominations. I trust this will convince everyone of the need for the papacy for unity.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2011, 03:49:23 PM »

To Lutherans, Sola Scriptura is pretty much interpreting the Bible according to what Dr. Martin Luther said.

I don't claim to be an expert on Lutheranism, but I know enough to know that this is a ridiculous caricature.

What's especially interesting is that you even contradicted it 2 sentences later:

Where they agree with Luther's interpretation of the text then they will use them, but where they differ......well, they will argue with them and scream Sola Scriptura.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2011, 03:50:49 PM »

There has been a great deal of theological and practical elaboration since AD 70. Protestantism arises out of the realization/theory/heresy (take your pick) that late medieval Catholic practice (and the theology behind it) had evolved so as to pick up a number of abuses. OK, well, where to start in criticizing them? Well, at the very least one could say that scripture, not having evolved, could serve as a touchstone. That principle is what lies behind all the various versions of sola scriptura. After that there is a great deal of disagreement, partly over exactly how it is to be applied as a test, but also because of the various Protestant interpretive traditions. The Eastern churches really don't figure in this except to the degree to which they reflect medieval western practice and theology-- which they do to a very great degree.

Could you expand on that last sentence?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2011, 05:37:08 PM »


one cannot really hold the churches to adherence to the Nicene Creed until it had in fact been formulated.




....Churches before [Nicea] may not have, probably didn't teach anything contrary to Nicea, but they didn't teach what they council taught either.


Keble, you keep saying "churches" -- but there was only one church.  The Church, not "the churches."  A small point, but an important distinction, I think. 

http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=churches&s=Bibles&t=nkjv

†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Tags: sola scriptura 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.168 seconds with 74 queries.