OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 12:34:11 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What is Sola Scriptura?  (Read 12413 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Thankful
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 263



« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2011, 08:02:21 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†


Touche! The difference I think is that that word "churches" refers to individual units of the larger "one holy catholic and apostolic church" while the way the word was being used above seemed to indicate individual churches or groups of churches that are not in unity with each other.  But I see what you're saying and point received.  
« Last Edit: May 10, 2011, 08:03:04 PM by Thankful » Logged

jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #46 on: May 11, 2011, 12:21:56 AM »

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.


What I said may not be true for liberal Lutherans, but it is true for Lutherans who believe in what they are suppose to believe in. And no, I didn't contradict myself. Lutherans will make use of the church fathers and early creeds whenever they agree with Luther, but they will disagree with them and scream sola Scriptura whenever the fathers and church councils disagree with Luther.....and Melencthon.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-ruleandnorm.php (book of concord)

Quote: "Whereby All Dogmas should be Judged according to God's Word, and the Controversies that have Occurred should be Explained and Decided in a Christian Manner.
1] Since for thorough, permanent unity in the Church it is, above all things, necessary that we have a comprehensive, unanimously approved summary and form wherein is brought together from God's Word the common doctrine, reduced to a brief compass, which the churches that are of the true Christian religion confess, just as the ancient Church always had for this use its fixed symbols; 2] moreover, since this [comprehensive form of doctrine] should not be based on private writings, but on such books as have been composed, approved, and received in the name of the churches which pledge themselves to one doctrine and religion, we have declared to one another with heart and mouth that we will not make or receive a separate or new confession of our faith, but confess the public common writings which always and everywhere were held and used as such symbols or common confessions in all the churches of the Augsburg Confession before the dissensions arose among those who accept the Augsburg Confession, and as long as in all articles there was on all sides a unanimous adherence to [and maintenance and use of] the pure doctrine of the divine Word, as the sainted Dr. Luther explained it."


« Last Edit: May 11, 2011, 12:42:40 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/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 11, 2011, 12:35:52 AM »

Peter J,

The way I explained Sola Scriptura is pretty much what one sees not only in history but also on the ground when one argues with the various forms of Sola Scriptura.

The arguments I use against Lutherans in regards to Sola Scriptura will not always be the same when I'm arguing against the Reformed and Baptists.

Each argument has to be tailored made for the group in question. For what works for one may not necessarily work for the other.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2011, 12:40:06 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/
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,019



« Reply #48 on: May 11, 2011, 06:27:12 AM »

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.


What I said may not be true for liberal Lutherans, but it is true for Lutherans who believe in what they are suppose to believe in. And no, I didn't contradict myself. Lutherans will make use of the church fathers and early creeds whenever they agree with Luther, but they will disagree with them and scream sola Scriptura whenever the fathers and church councils disagree with Luther.....and Melencthon.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-ruleandnorm.php (book of concord)

Quote: "Whereby All Dogmas should be Judged according to God's Word, and the Controversies that have Occurred should be Explained and Decided in a Christian Manner.
1] Since for thorough, permanent unity in the Church it is, above all things, necessary that we have a comprehensive, unanimously approved summary and form wherein is brought together from God's Word the common doctrine, reduced to a brief compass, which the churches that are of the true Christian religion confess, just as the ancient Church always had for this use its fixed symbols; 2] moreover, since this [comprehensive form of doctrine] should not be based on private writings, but on such books as have been composed, approved, and received in the name of the churches which pledge themselves to one doctrine and religion, we have declared to one another with heart and mouth that we will not make or receive a separate or new confession of our faith, but confess the public common writings which always and everywhere were held and used as such symbols or common confessions in all the churches of the Augsburg Confession before the dissensions arose among those who accept the Augsburg Confession, and as long as in all articles there was on all sides a unanimous adherence to [and maintenance and use of] the pure doctrine of the divine Word, as the sainted Dr. Luther explained it."


You're right in saying that you didn't contradict yourself ... I misunderstood your pronouns. Sorry.

Now, as for the quotation from the Book of Concord, I believe it is referring, not to every single thing that Luther ever said, but only to those statements that were made official as it were (e.g. in the Augsburg Confession). In much the same way, Orthodox don't claim that every single thing that St. Cyril of Alexandria ever said is correct, but only those statement that were made official (by the Council of Ephesus). Correct me if I'm wrong of course.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 678


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #49 on: May 11, 2011, 07:52:27 AM »

I have stated more than once before that I believe the only reason Orthodoxy eschews Sola Scriptura (and the term 'fundamentalist') is because of sectarian reasons more than belief.
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #50 on: May 11, 2011, 02:37:56 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.


What I said may not be true for liberal Lutherans, but it is true for Lutherans who believe in what they are suppose to believe in. And no, I didn't contradict myself. Lutherans will make use of the church fathers and early creeds whenever they agree with Luther, but they will disagree with them and scream sola Scriptura whenever the fathers and church councils disagree with Luther.....and Melencthon.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-ruleandnorm.php (book of concord)

Quote: "Whereby All Dogmas should be Judged according to God's Word, and the Controversies that have Occurred should be Explained and Decided in a Christian Manner.
1] Since for thorough, permanent unity in the Church it is, above all things, necessary that we have a comprehensive, unanimously approved summary and form wherein is brought together from God's Word the common doctrine, reduced to a brief compass, which the churches that are of the true Christian religion confess, just as the ancient Church always had for this use its fixed symbols; 2] moreover, since this [comprehensive form of doctrine] should not be based on private writings, but on such books as have been composed, approved, and received in the name of the churches which pledge themselves to one doctrine and religion, we have declared to one another with heart and mouth that we will not make or receive a separate or new confession of our faith, but confess the public common writings which always and everywhere were held and used as such symbols or common confessions in all the churches of the Augsburg Confession before the dissensions arose among those who accept the Augsburg Confession, and as long as in all articles there was on all sides a unanimous adherence to [and maintenance and use of] the pure doctrine of the divine Word, as the sainted Dr. Luther explained it."


You're right in saying that you didn't contradict yourself ... I misunderstood your pronouns. Sorry.

Now, as for the quotation from the Book of Concord, I believe it is referring, not to every single thing that Luther ever said, but only to those statements that were made official as it were (e.g. in the Augsburg Confession). In much the same way, Orthodox don't claim that every single thing that St. Cyril of Alexandria ever said is correct, but only those statement that were made official (by the Council of Ephesus). Correct me if I'm wrong of course.

You will have to ask Lutherans on what that portion of the book of concord means. What I do know is that the Lutherans don't always interpret Scripture in the same way a Calvinist or Reformed christian will, and a Reformed / Calvinistic christian will not always interpret Scripture in the same way an Anabaptist christian interprets it, and an American Baptist will not always interpret the text of Scripture in the same way an Anabaptist will. And they all claim to be advocates of Sola Scriptura! This tells me that the issue is really about interpretation and who the interpretive authorities are.

Check out this lecture mp3 about the issue of Sola Scriptura with the Anabaptists, the Lutherans and Reformed.
http://maxieburch.net/audio/MRC2010Wk8.mp3 (Medieval / Reformation Christianity: Lecture 8 )


Also in regards to the 2nd generation reformers of the Reformed / Calvinist wing and the whole issue of biblical interpretation and authority....well, check this out:
http://youtu.be/qibg-m2vUno (ewtn Live - Protestant Theology - Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J. with David Anders)
« Last Edit: May 11, 2011, 02:46:53 PM 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/
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #51 on: May 12, 2011, 12:54:36 AM »

I have stated more than once before that I believe the only reason Orthodoxy eschews Sola Scriptura (and the term 'fundamentalist') is because of sectarian reasons more than belief.
Would you care to expand upon this statement?
Logged
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 #52 on: May 12, 2011, 01:02:40 AM »


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†


Touche! The difference I think is that that word "churches" refers to individual units of the larger "one holy catholic and apostolic church" while the way the word was being used above seemed to indicate individual churches or groups of churches that are not in unity with each other.  But I see what you're saying and point received.  

Hi Thankful,

I appreciate the reply...

No need for the "touche" though... unlike some I don't really consider the net to be a contest of who is right and who is wrong. This is not 'intellectual fencing' for me the way it is for many. I'm just looking for the truth in everything.

And don't get me wrong... I don't really agree w/ Keble's initial premise that the Churches (which made up the one Church) "cannot be held to adherance to the Creed" either.

It was those very same Churches which came together to formulate the Creed based on all of the things that the Church had always believed; all along.

So I would say that the first Churches (the Church) did indeed hold to the Creed... it was only when others began to stray, and to teach heresies contrary to that Creed that it became necessary for the Church to spell it out.

It was not a formulation of the Creed... but a clarification of the Creed; an affirmation; an assertion of what the Churches everywhere had always believed. I would say that the declaration of the Creed was as much about what it didn't say as what it did.

†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.
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #53 on: May 12, 2011, 02:24:32 AM »

Defining it as a single idea is a bit wrong as protestants are fundamentally divided on this central doctrine and what it means themselves, Some say it means Scripture is the only authority, some say it is the final Authority. I see huge distinctions between these two ideas, while the first rejects tradition of all kind, the second sees a place for it. But ultimately both opinions are wrong.
Logged
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 678


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #54 on: May 12, 2011, 05:14:29 AM »

I have stated more than once before that I believe the only reason Orthodoxy eschews Sola Scriptura (and the term 'fundamentalist') is because of sectarian reasons more than belief.
Would you care to expand upon this statement?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29496.0.html
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #55 on: May 12, 2011, 11:32:00 AM »

I have stated more than once before that I believe the only reason Orthodoxy eschews Sola Scriptura (and the term 'fundamentalist') is because of sectarian reasons more than belief.
Would you care to expand upon this statement?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29496.0.html

Check this out:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9161.0.html (Prima Scriptura)

I must of missed your thread last year. My bad!
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/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 12, 2011, 12:05:48 PM »

sprtslvr1973,


You also have to keep in mind that the Church was able to operate and function just fine without a 100% unified biblical canon for centuries upon centuries, and so Sola Scriptura can only really work if you already have a 100% unified canon.The fact that the reality on the ground shows a different picture for centuries upon centuries should tell us that Sola Scriptura was never the view of the Church. The Church had a view, but Sola Scriptura wasn't it. It was pretty much impossible for Sola Scriptura to exist in the early centuries.........to be honest.

I mean, it can't exist in the Old Testament for we had prophets back then (The Old Testament view was more of a form of Prima Scriptura. Scripture was held in high esteem, but you also had prophets that walked the Earth and spoke for God). It can't really exist in the first century of the New Covenant because we have God Incarnate walking the Earth as well as His Disciples/Apostles. And like I said previously, the Church functioned just fine in the late first century, second century, third century, fourth century, fifth century......etc. without a 100% unified canon.

The various canons were based on the Liturgies of the major Christian centers of influence......you know, the regions that eventually became Patriarchates.

« Last Edit: May 12, 2011, 12:09:08 PM 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/
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 678


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #57 on: May 12, 2011, 01:17:26 PM »

sprtslvr1973,


You also have to keep in mind that the Church was able to operate and function just fine without a 100% unified biblical canon for centuries upon centuries, and so Sola Scriptura can only really work if you already have a 100% unified canon.The fact that the reality on the ground shows a different picture for centuries upon centuries should tell us that Sola Scriptura was never the view of the Church. The Church had a view, but Sola Scriptura wasn't it. It was pretty much impossible for Sola Scriptura to exist in the early centuries.........to be honest.

I mean, it can't exist in the Old Testament for we had prophets back then (The Old Testament view was more of a form of Prima Scriptura. Scripture was held in high esteem, but you also had prophets that walked the Earth and spoke for God). It can't really exist in the first century of the New Covenant because we have God Incarnate walking the Earth as well as His Disciples/Apostles. And like I said previously, the Church functioned just fine in the late first century, second century, third century, fourth century, fifth century......etc. without a 100% unified canon.

The various canons were based on the Liturgies of the major Christian centers of influence......you know, the regions that eventually became Patriarchates.


I hear what you are saying, but as I'm sure you are aware, the response to the above argument, generally, is that once Scripture is completed, than no other sources are needed, including among other things, miracles. I am not saying I agree with everything here, just stating the point which again, you are probably familiar with.
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,366



« Reply #58 on: May 12, 2011, 03:33:40 PM »

And don't get me wrong... I don't really agree w/ Keble's initial premise that the Churches (which made up the one Church) "cannot be held to adherance to the Creed" either.

It's better to reserve quotation marks for that which really is quoted: nobody said "cannot be held in adherence to the Creed" anywhere in this thread.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,252

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #59 on: May 12, 2011, 08:31:46 PM »

I came across the quote of Tertullian's a few days ago. Thought it relevant.

In order that we may be judged to have the truth - we who walk in the rule which the Churches have handed down from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God - admit that the reasonableness of our position is clear, defining as it does that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge [us by] an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without using Scripture, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. If they are heretics, they cannot be Christians, because it is not from Christ that they have gotten what they pursue of their own choosing, and from which they incur the name heretic.

Not being Christians, they have acquired no right to Christian literature; and it might be justly said to them, "Who are you? When and from where did you come? Since you are not of mine, what are you doing with what is mine? Indeed, Marcion, by what right do you chop in my forest? By whose permission, Valentine, do you divert my streams? By what authority, Apelles, do you move my boundary markers? And the rest of you, why do you sow and graze here at your own pleasure? This is my property, which I have long possessed, which I possessed before you came, and for which I have a sure title from the very authors whose property it was. I am the heir of the Apostles. As they carefully prepared their will, as they committed it to a trust, and as they sealed it with an oath, so do I hold the inheritance. You, certainly, they always held as disinherited, and rejected you as strangers and enemies."


I'm interested in a Protestant's take on this. I know it's strong language, but the thought process is pretty clear and unmistakable. God gave to Christ, Christ gave to Apostles, Apostles gave to their successors. If you are not of this connected tradition, and come to believe things that have not been handed down to us, you are not a Christian. And since you are not a Christian, you have no right taking what's ours and using it as you see fit.

I know Protestants would immediately say that they are Christians because they have placed their faith in Christ, but Tertullian was talking about people who had done so too. He was talking about people had faith in Christ for salvation, who took the Scriptures, interpreted them on their own, came to their own conclusions, and believed what they thought to be the truth. And he branded them heretics.

He, of course, is not the hallmark of Christianity, but I thought the quote was interesting and would love to hear others' thoughts.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2011, 08:32:36 PM by Sleeper » Logged
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #60 on: May 12, 2011, 08:59:38 PM »

1. Noah boat was closed, however Eastern Orthodox Church is open even today and everybody willing eternal life and heaven can get in.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,366



« Reply #61 on: May 13, 2011, 12:06:09 AM »

I am hard pressed to decide whether it is deeply wrongheaded to invoke the Monatist Tertullian in defense of Orthodoxy, or merely conspicuously ironic, but in either case, it can be said that the truth, inasmuch as it can be owned, is not true, and that to say "our truth" is in essence to authorize relativism. The truth, if it be catholic, must of necessity defy ownership and stand on its own. The church may testify to truth, it may give witness to it, but when it claims to own it, it sets itself in place of truth.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 13, 2011, 12:15:36 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

That's not the standard Orthodox position, actually.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #63 on: May 13, 2011, 12:19:59 AM »

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.

Orthodox Christianity did not start at the creation of the Nicene Creed.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 13, 2011, 12:22:14 AM »

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.

Orthodoxy is just Apostolic Christianity which implicitly taught all the same things as the Creed.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #65 on: May 13, 2011, 12:25:31 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 appears to have been derived from viewing all different jurisdictions as different denominations. And the fact of the matter is that most people don't understand denomination this way. At the most micro, a denomination is understood as a fully associated group of believers, like the Lutheran World Federation, or in many cases a whole denominational tradition, such as all of Lutheranism.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 13, 2011, 12:27:51 AM »

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.

Through my experience with exploring OOy because of my position on Chalcedon, on other issues I would frequently find myself in greater agreement with EOs than OOs.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #67 on: May 13, 2011, 12:29:22 AM »

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.

It is fairly apparent that there is such a continuity, but it's not a fact that the EOC is the continuous one.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #68 on: May 13, 2011, 12:35:45 AM »

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.

Orthodoxy isn't fundamentally about all of the formulations that now constitute dogma or explicit belief in them. That's not even what doctrinal continuity is about. Formulations of doctrine are one thing. The substance of the doctrine is another. And I think it's fair to assert that the substantial doctrine of the Nicene Creed was believed in all along, and is even implied by a number of the pre-Nicene formulations.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 12:35:59 AM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,252

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #69 on: May 13, 2011, 12:37:46 AM »

I am hard pressed to decide whether it is deeply wrongheaded to invoke the Monatist Tertullian in defense of Orthodoxy, or merely conspicuously ironic, but in either case, it can be said that the truth, inasmuch as it can be owned, is not true, and that to say "our truth" is in essence to authorize relativism. The truth, if it be catholic, must of necessity defy ownership and stand on its own. The church may testify to truth, it may give witness to it, but when it claims to own it, it sets itself in place of truth.


Clever, but he only became a Montanist later in life and he said this before that, so I still think it's relevant Smiley

Also, I don't believe he was implying ownership of the truth, but rights to the use of the scriptures. The truth of the scriptures is meant for all, but all are not free to take the scriptures and do with them as they wish.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #70 on: May 13, 2011, 12:41:05 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.

That's not the only problem with it. The other problem is that it applies the same principle of counting all jurisdictions as denominations as it did with the Orthodox, rather than acknowledging that most of these jurisdictions could be grouped with another of others as united faith traditions that are in full communion with each other.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #71 on: May 13, 2011, 12:47:36 AM »

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.

Well, there is clearly disagreement on this. We believe (I still believe this even though my own attachment to Orthodoxy is wavering) that the Nicene Creed simply formulated what the Church had actually believed all along, and that the concept of doctrinal development that you describe is indeed repugnant to Apostolic Christianity. Given this, I think the reason for the objecting to your original statement about the churches of the NT not being Orthodox is clear.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,366



« Reply #72 on: May 13, 2011, 06:22:24 AM »

Clever, but he only became a Montanist later in life and he said this before that, so I still think it's relevant Smiley

So I take it you'll go with "ironic".

Quote
Also, I don't believe he was implying ownership of the truth, but rights to the use of the scriptures. The truth of the scriptures is meant for all, but all are not free to take the scriptures and do with them as they wish.

Well, we're talking a natural right here; it is impossible to stop anyone from doing with them as they wish.

But this is really a claim about the truth of hermeneutics, and we're back to a point I've made over and over through the years: if you are the only one allowed to present arguments about something, then you cannot convince me, because you're saying the rules of argument don't apply to you. It is only the universal nature of argument that makes it worthwhile in the first place. Tertullian is therefore really trying to escape the responsibility of presenting convincing arguments.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 06:22:39 AM by Keble » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,366



« Reply #73 on: May 13, 2011, 06:27:04 AM »

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.

Well, there is clearly disagreement on this. We believe (I still believe this even though my own attachment to Orthodoxy is wavering) that the Nicene Creed simply formulated what the Church had actually believed all along, and that the concept of doctrinal development that you describe is indeed repugnant to Apostolic Christianity. Given this, I think the reason for the objecting to your original statement about the churches of the NT not being Orthodox is clear.

But this is a historical claim, and as I said on a certain level it isn't true. There is a point at which trinitarian doctrine begins to be expressed, and before that point it is questionable at best, erroneous much of the time to try to differentiate what is Orthodox in that sense.
Logged
David Garner
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 292



WWW
« Reply #74 on: May 13, 2011, 08:15:12 AM »

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.


What I said may not be true for liberal Lutherans, but it is true for Lutherans who believe in what they are suppose to believe in. And no, I didn't contradict myself. Lutherans will make use of the church fathers and early creeds whenever they agree with Luther, but they will disagree with them and scream sola Scriptura whenever the fathers and church councils disagree with Luther.....and Melencthon.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-ruleandnorm.php (book of concord)

Quote: "Whereby All Dogmas should be Judged according to God's Word, and the Controversies that have Occurred should be Explained and Decided in a Christian Manner.
1] Since for thorough, permanent unity in the Church it is, above all things, necessary that we have a comprehensive, unanimously approved summary and form wherein is brought together from God's Word the common doctrine, reduced to a brief compass, which the churches that are of the true Christian religion confess, just as the ancient Church always had for this use its fixed symbols; 2] moreover, since this [comprehensive form of doctrine] should not be based on private writings, but on such books as have been composed, approved, and received in the name of the churches which pledge themselves to one doctrine and religion, we have declared to one another with heart and mouth that we will not make or receive a separate or new confession of our faith, but confess the public common writings which always and everywhere were held and used as such symbols or common confessions in all the churches of the Augsburg Confession before the dissensions arose among those who accept the Augsburg Confession, and as long as in all articles there was on all sides a unanimous adherence to [and maintenance and use of] the pure doctrine of the divine Word, as the sainted Dr. Luther explained it."


You're right in saying that you didn't contradict yourself ... I misunderstood your pronouns. Sorry.

Now, as for the quotation from the Book of Concord, I believe it is referring, not to every single thing that Luther ever said, but only to those statements that were made official as it were (e.g. in the Augsburg Confession). In much the same way, Orthodox don't claim that every single thing that St. Cyril of Alexandria ever said is correct, but only those statement that were made official (by the Council of Ephesus). Correct me if I'm wrong of course.

You are correct, as the Solid Declaration makes clear not 3 paragraphs later:

Quote
In the third place, since in these last times God, out of especial grace, has brought the truth of His Word to light again from the darkness of the Papacy through the faithful service of the precious man of God, Dr. Luther, and since this doctrine has been collected from, and according to, God's Word into the articles and chapters of the Augsburg Confession against the corruptions of the Papacy and also of other sects, we confess also the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession as our symbol for this time, not because it was composed by our theologians, but because it has been taken from God's Word and is founded firmly and well therein, precisely in the form in which it was committed to writing, in the year 1530, and presented to the Emperor Charles V at Augsburg by some Christian Electors, Princes, and Estates of the Roman Empire as a common confession of the reformed churches, whereby our reformed churches are distinguished from the Papists and other repudiated and condemned sects and heresies, after the custom and usage of the early Church, whereby succeeding councils, Christian bishops and teachers appealed to the Nicene Creed, and confessed it (publicly declared that they embraced it).

6] 4. In the fourth place, as regards the proper and true sense of the oft-quoted Augsburg Confession, an extensive Apology was composed and published in print in 1531, after the presentation of the Confession, in order that we might explain ourselves at greater length and guard against the (slanders of the) Papists, and that condemned errors might not steal into the Church of God under the name of the Augsburg Confession, or dare to seek cover under the same. We unanimously confess this also, because not only is the said Augsburg Confession explained as much as is necessary and guarded (against the slanders of the adversaries), but also proven (confirmed) by clear, irrefutable testimonies of Holy Scripture.

7] 5. In the fifth place, we also confess the Articles composed, approved, and received at Smalcald in the large assembly of theologians, in the year 1537, as they were first framed and printed in order to be delivered in the council at Mantua, or wherever it would be held, in the name of the Estates, Electors, and Princes, as an explanation of the above-mentioned Augsburg Confession, wherein by God's grace they were resolved to abide. In them the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession is repeated, and some articles are explained at greater length from God's Word, and, besides, the cause and grounds are indicated, as far as necessary, why we have abandoned the papistical errors and idolatries, and can have no fellowship with them, and also why we know, and can think of, no way for coming to any agreement with the Pope concerning them.

8] 6. And now, in the sixth place, because these highly important matters (the business of religion) concern also the common people and laymen (as they are called), who, inasmuch as they are Christians, must for their salvation distinguish between pure and false doctrine, we confess also the Small and the Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther, as they were written by him and incorporated in his works, because they have been unanimously approved and received by all churches adhering to the Augsburg Confession, and have been publicly used in churches, schools, and in (private) houses, and, moreover, because the Christian doctrine from God's Word is comprised in them in the most correct and simple way, and, in like manner, is explained, as far as necessary (for simple laymen).

And further, the confessions enumerated above are littered with quotations from the Fathers so exhaustive that I would not even attempt to list them all here.  That does NOT mean Lutherans quote or interpret the Fathers rightly, but it does mean there is quite a bit more to Lutheran theology than "the Bible according to what Dr. Martin Luther said."  Sola scriptura to a Lutheran is (as they believe it) interpreting the Scriptures as (they believe) the Church has always interpreted them.  I disagree their interpretations are accurate in many cases, but they are hardly Martin Luther and his Bible and everyone else shut up and pay attention.
Logged

Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,366



« Reply #75 on: May 13, 2011, 09:06:58 AM »

And further, the confessions enumerated above are littered with quotations from the Fathers so exhaustive that I would not even attempt to list them all here.  That does NOT mean Lutherans quote or interpret the Fathers rightly, but it does mean there is quite a bit more to Lutheran theology than "the Bible according to what Dr. Martin Luther said."  Sola scriptura to a Lutheran is (as they believe it) interpreting the Scriptures as (they believe) the Church has always interpreted them.  I disagree their interpretations are accurate in many cases, but they are hardly Martin Luther and his Bible and everyone else shut up and pay attention.

This point needs to be emphasized. There is an American strain of sola scriptura which perhaps reaches its apex with the JWs writing the New World Translation with no more aid than a copy of the KJV and a bible dictionary (well, and perhaps the Holy Spirit, though the resulting text casts doubts that He was much involved). The old mainline Protestant traditions, the Lutherans and ANglicans and Calvinists, were on the other hand founded by men who were part and parcel of the scholarly world of the day. Luther knew the fathers as well as anyone in Europe; Calvin studied religion before turning to law. The Anglican divines likewise did not want for knowledge of the church fathers; moreover the various Protestant groups were in intellectual contact with each other, so that for instance Cranmer's work shows both Lutheran and Calvinist ideas. Lutheranism reflects Luther's own personal ideas; Calvinism, more strongly, those of its founder; Anglicanism is more diverse, but the Jacobean and Caroline divines in particular are reflected in Anglican theology through the years. That is hardly surprising, and it would be preferable that these differences were resolved, as has been done to a limited degree between ECUSA and ELCA and now the Moravians. Yes, the reformers pitched a lot of stuff over the side, but it wasn't for lack of knowledge of it.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,522



« Reply #76 on: May 13, 2011, 10:12:34 AM »

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.

It is fairly apparent that there is such a continuity, but it's not a fact that the EOC is the continuous one.

Perhaps Athens would have been a less diputed example from Acts.

Anyway, we do disagree on who exactly has maintained succession in communion and doctrine with the apostles, and we pretty much know where each other stands, but we do agree that there is a continuity somewhere, so that's pretty much it. As a side note, while not formally in communion, the EO and OO patriarchates of Antioch do allow intercommuning on the level of the laity, which does in and of itself imply a mutual acknowledgement of such continuity in each others churches even though there is a formal division there. But then again, that's just those two particular churches that I'm aware of and doesn't necessarily speak for the entirety of either communion of churches.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,252

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #77 on: May 13, 2011, 10:12:58 AM »

Clever, but he only became a Montanist later in life and he said this before that, so I still think it's relevant Smiley

So I take it you'll go with "ironic".

I'll go with neither. His being a Montanist later in his life is completely irrelevant to what he's saying.

Quote
Quote
Also, I don't believe he was implying ownership of the truth, but rights to the use of the scriptures. The truth of the scriptures is meant for all, but all are not free to take the scriptures and do with them as they wish.

Well, we're talking a natural right here; it is impossible to stop anyone from doing with them as they wish.

Right, it's impossible to stop them, but it needs to be recognized that once they start down this road, they are no longer a part of the Apostolic Church. Stopping people isn't the issues, its the claim of those doing it that they are still "the Church" that is the issue, for Tertullian.

Quote
But this is really a claim about the truth of hermeneutics, and we're back to a point I've made over and over through the years: if you are the only one allowed to present arguments about something, then you cannot convince me, because you're saying the rules of argument don't apply to you. It is only the universal nature of argument that makes it worthwhile in the first place. Tertullian is therefore really trying to escape the responsibility of presenting convincing arguments.

Making it about hermeneutics is part of the problem though. It's a fundamental difference of viewpoint. Protestants tend to take the approach that the Truth is somewhere "out there" for us to determine and decide for ourselves, through Scripture reading/hermeneutics. Those of the Apostolic Churches, though, understand it as the Scriptures actually portray it: the Truth was fully revealed in Christ, fully handed to the Apostles, and fully handed down to their successors to the present time.

The Truth is something that is already intact, something that has to be preserved, guarded and kept, it's not something that we're still trying to figure out or something that we're searching for through Bible study.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,366



« Reply #78 on: May 13, 2011, 02:49:37 PM »

Clever, but he only became a Montanist later in life and he said this before that, so I still think it's relevant Smiley

So I take it you'll go with "ironic".

I'll go with neither. His being a Montanist later in his life is completely irrelevant to what he's saying.

Well, if you can't see the irony, I can't help you there. But anyway....

Quote
Quote
Quote
Also, I don't believe he was implying ownership of the truth, but rights to the use of the scriptures. The truth of the scriptures is meant for all, but all are not free to take the scriptures and do with them as they wish.

Well, we're talking a natural right here; it is impossible to stop anyone from doing with them as they wish.

Right, it's impossible to stop them, but it needs to be recognized that once they start down this road, they are no longer a part of the Apostolic Church. Stopping people isn't the issues, its the claim of those doing it that they are still "the Church" that is the issue, for Tertullian.

I think his claim is a bit stronger than that, but the point in any case is that this rule works just as well for "heretics" as it does for "orthodoxy". Indeed, it produces exactly the fragmentation one sees in the church, because it says that no church has any obligation to convince any other church, or even to consider that its own doctrines might be faulty. It's a subjective standard.

Quote
Quote
But this is really a claim about the truth of hermeneutics, and we're back to a point I've made over and over through the years: if you are the only one allowed to present arguments about something, then you cannot convince me, because you're saying the rules of argument don't apply to you. It is only the universal nature of argument that makes it worthwhile in the first place. Tertullian is therefore really trying to escape the responsibility of presenting convincing arguments.

Making it about hermeneutics is part of the problem though. It's a fundamental difference of viewpoint. Protestants tend to take the approach that the Truth is somewhere "out there" for us to determine and decide for ourselves, through Scripture reading/hermeneutics. Those of the Apostolic Churches, though, understand it as the Scriptures actually portray it: the Truth was fully revealed in Christ, fully handed to the Apostles, and fully handed down to their successors to the present time.

There are definitely those who do take the approach to religious Truth which you attribute to all Protestants, and I agree that it simply isn't compatible with any vaguely decent ecclesiology. It is an error that is mostly confined to modernists and restorationists; the old mainline churches don't think that way.

And the problem I have with your contrasting view is that already you have to apply a hermeneutic to it in order to get any answers that apply to the issue at hand! There are explanations, and justifications for those explanations, and so forth, and already the greater authority of reasoning has been granted a role in mediating the interchange. So for instance I look at the doctrine of the trinity, and I say, well, yes, I believe this, I've run over all the arguments and they are sound, I've looked at the contrary viewpoints and they have problems, and I see the development of the doctrine, and all is well. This a ratification of my relationship with the church as a teaching authority, not me discovering the truth through some sort of theological archeology or the like. So if you say something like, "well, forget all that, you cannot legitimately review the doctrine, you can only accept it or be a heretic," my reaction is that you're cheating: that is not valid reasoning, and therefore you cannot convince me. And I suppose that you can make a consistent system by consistently cheating every time reasoning occurs within the system, by saying, well, if you agree with the reasoning you're OK, and if not, you're out. But this is so much BS considering that reasoning within the system is actually supposed to be convincing; there's no way you can say that it's only expected to be convincing if you can be convinced of it whatever its content.

I don't know that I'd use the word "fundamental", as though the gospel itself, the apostles themselves, Jesus Himself were not the foundations. But you are right in labelling it a crucial difference. But it is yet a crucial difference in hermeneutics.
Logged
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 #79 on: May 15, 2011, 09:22:39 AM »

And don't get me wrong... I don't really agree w/ Keble's initial premise that the Churches (which made up the one Church) "cannot be held to adherance to the Creed" either.

It's better to reserve quotation marks for that which really is quoted: nobody said "cannot be held in adherence to the Creed" anywhere in this thread.

Really?

 

"(O)ne cannot really hold the churches to adherence to the Nicene Creed (...)"


That's the same statement isn't it?

And anyway, I did specifically state that it was your "premise" I was referring to.

†IC XC†
†NI KA†



« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 09:23:12 AM by Saint Iaint » 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.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,234


« Reply #80 on: May 15, 2011, 10:21:24 AM »

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.

The contents of the Nicene Creed were given to the Apostles c. 30 CE. That it wasn't written down and handed out in gift baskets for another 300 years is neither here nor there.  police
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,366



« Reply #81 on: May 15, 2011, 12:36:56 PM »

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.

The contents of the Nicene Creed were given to the Apostles c. 30 CE. That it wasn't written down and handed out in gift baskets for another 300 years is neither here nor there.  police

If that be true, then you can hardly object when Protestants demand that it be proven from scripture alone, since scripture alone stands in record of such an early date.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,234


« Reply #82 on: May 15, 2011, 12:54:27 PM »

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.

The contents of the Nicene Creed were given to the Apostles c. 30 CE. That it wasn't written down and handed out in gift baskets for another 300 years is neither here nor there.  police

If that be true, then you can hardly object when Protestants demand that it be proven from scripture alone, since scripture alone stands in record of such an early date.


The contents of the Nicene Creed were given to the Apostles c. 30 CE. That it wasn't written down and handed out in gift baskets for another 300 years is neither here nor there.  police
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,019



« Reply #83 on: May 15, 2011, 02:52:07 PM »

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.

The contents of the Nicene Creed were given to the Apostles c. 30 CE. That it wasn't written down and handed out in gift baskets for another 300 years is neither here nor there.  police

If that be true, then you can hardly object when Protestants demand that it be proven from scripture alone, since scripture alone stands in record of such an early date.


The contents of the Nicene Creed were given to the Apostles c. 30 CE. That it wasn't written down and handed out in gift baskets for another 300 years is neither here nor there.  police

That's weak.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,234


« Reply #84 on: May 15, 2011, 03:01:32 PM »

That's weak.

Indeed. Weak and strong. Smiley  But I would like to say why I simply repeated myself in the last post. The way I figure it, Keble has been doing this stuff for longer than I've been alive. He's a well read guy. He's a knowledgable guy. I could very well quote what St. Paul, St. John, St. Basil the Great, and others say about written and unwritten traditions, making all sorts of arguments about the faith once delivered to the saints, how the Orthodox kept this faith from the beginning and didn't add or substract from it, and all that good stuff. But I'm pretty sure he's heard that all before a thousand times, and he has apparently found the arguments to be unpersuasive. I have no reason to think that I am going to be the one that finally speaks so eloquently and with such weighty argumentation that he changes his mind.  
« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 03:02:13 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,441


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #85 on: May 15, 2011, 03:44:18 PM »

And don't get me wrong... I don't really agree w/ Keble's initial premise that the Churches (which made up the one Church) "cannot be held to adherance to the Creed" either.

It's better to reserve quotation marks for that which really is quoted: nobody said "cannot be held in adherence to the Creed" anywhere in this thread.

Really?

 

"(O)ne cannot really hold the churches to adherence to the Nicene Creed (...)"


That's the same statement isn't it?

And anyway, I did specifically state that it was your "premise" I was referring to.

†IC XC†
†NI KA†




I think that what Keble is trying to say is this: when you wrap words in quotation marks and attribute them to someone else, make sure you quote that other person verbatim. What you did was paraphrase something Keble said and then wrap your paraphrase in quotes to make it look as if Keble spoke it word for word, which he did not.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 03:45:30 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
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 #86 on: May 15, 2011, 07:39:21 PM »

And don't get me wrong... I don't really agree w/ Keble's initial premise that the Churches (which made up the one Church) "cannot be held to adherance to the Creed" either.

It's better to reserve quotation marks for that which really is quoted: nobody said "cannot be held in adherence to the Creed" anywhere in this thread.

Really?

 

"(O)ne cannot really hold the churches to adherence to the Nicene Creed (...)"


That's the same statement isn't it?

And anyway, I did specifically state that it was your "premise" I was referring to.

†IC XC†
†NI KA†




I think that what Keble is trying to say is this: when you wrap words in quotation marks and attribute them to someone else, make sure you quote that other person verbatim. What you did was paraphrase something Keble said and then wrap your paraphrase in quotes to make it look as if Keble spoke it word for word, which he did not.

Yes, OK.

I acquiesce... but I was paraphrasing and I did stipulate that I was only conveying his
Quote
"initial premise".

An exact quotation would call for /quote/ tags which I did not use... Perhaps it would have been better if I had used 'this' instead of "this"?

Anyhow point taken... from now on I will always just use the /quote/ tags and directly copy/paste the exact words within.

Thanks,

†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.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,366



« Reply #87 on: May 15, 2011, 08:50:19 PM »

The problem, SIA, is that you truncated my statement and therefore misrepresented what I said.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #88 on: May 17, 2011, 09:50:35 AM »

Keble,

Are you saying that pre-nicene christians were non-trinitarians? If so then I would have to disagree with you. However, if you are saying that as a whole they didn't adhere to every word of the creed itself, and it's limits on what can be said vs what can't be said then I would agree. The pre-nicene world were more loose in their language. And Nicea was building on what they said, and so of course they wouldn't be held to the more stricter standards of Nicea and Constantinople 1.

However, with that said I must say that I was told or heard that the Nicene creed was mostly based on an earlier Baptismal creed, and so a good portion was known in the pre-nicene era. Also, one can find portions of the creed itself in some of the works in various pre-nicene church fathers and witnesses. And so we know that the bishops who gathered at Nicea were drawing from a rich tradition of Trinitarian thought that preceeded them.

 Now the interpretation of some of those statements in the pre-nicene world could have varied somewhat, but the basic understanding stayed the same. You must keep in mind that our Eastern Christian interpretation of the Nicene / Constantinople 1 creed differs from how the West interprets it. Our interpretation has way more continuity with the pre-nicene world than the west does. You see, unlike you guys we still believe and adhere to the Monarchy of the Father.

Before I became Orthodox I use to be a subordinationist Trinitarian in the pre-nicene sense of the word. There is still a mild form of subordinationism in the Nicene / Constantinople 1 creed itself and the difference isn't as major as you want to think. I still know protestant pre-nicene subordinationists that accept the Nicene / Constantinople 1 creed. Shammah is a pre-nicene subordinationist and so is Bercot. As well as a number of others. Like I said, I use to be one myself, and so I personally know that the differences are minor. There is a blog friend that I know who is a moderate Arian in the post Nicene and pre Constantinople 1 sense. I was arguing with him (on his blog) for a number of months last year. His views were of a moderate Arian nature for he didn't want to use the term homoousios, nor did he want to accept the Nicen / Constantinople 1 creed. In the comment section of his blog, I was trying to get him to accept Nicea / Constantinople 1. He was a former Jehovia Witness turned Evangelical protestant to Roman Catholic. He left Rome last year and now he isn't with anyone at the moment, however, he is still playing with moderate Arianism. He isn't that far away from the Nicean creed. If you read the comments in the blog links below then you will see how we make use of the pre-nicene church fathers.......in our going back and forth. The Pre-Nicen views weren't that far away from the Eastern interpretation of Nicea / Constantinople 1. The western interpretation is far different and thus further away from the pre-nicen views.
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/01/monarchy-god-father-or-essencegodhead.html ("The Monarchy": God the Father or the Essence/Godhead?)

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/01/is-one-god-of-bible-trinity-or-god.html (Is "the one God" of the Bible the Trinity, or God the Father?)

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/12/trinity-clear-biblical-teaching-or-post.html (The Trinity: a 'clear' Biblical teaching, or a pos..)

« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 10:16:18 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/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #89 on: May 17, 2011, 10:34:09 AM »

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.


What I said may not be true for liberal Lutherans, but it is true for Lutherans who believe in what they are suppose to believe in. And no, I didn't contradict myself. Lutherans will make use of the church fathers and early creeds whenever they agree with Luther, but they will disagree with them and scream sola Scriptura whenever the fathers and church councils disagree with Luther.....and Melencthon.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-ruleandnorm.php (book of concord)

Quote: "Whereby All Dogmas should be Judged according to God's Word, and the Controversies that have Occurred should be Explained and Decided in a Christian Manner.
1] Since for thorough, permanent unity in the Church it is, above all things, necessary that we have a comprehensive, unanimously approved summary and form wherein is brought together from God's Word the common doctrine, reduced to a brief compass, which the churches that are of the true Christian religion confess, just as the ancient Church always had for this use its fixed symbols; 2] moreover, since this [comprehensive form of doctrine] should not be based on private writings, but on such books as have been composed, approved, and received in the name of the churches which pledge themselves to one doctrine and religion, we have declared to one another with heart and mouth that we will not make or receive a separate or new confession of our faith, but confess the public common writings which always and everywhere were held and used as such symbols or common confessions in all the churches of the Augsburg Confession before the dissensions arose among those who accept the Augsburg Confession, and as long as in all articles there was on all sides a unanimous adherence to [and maintenance and use of] the pure doctrine of the divine Word, as the sainted Dr. Luther explained it."


You're right in saying that you didn't contradict yourself ... I misunderstood your pronouns. Sorry.

Now, as for the quotation from the Book of Concord, I believe it is referring, not to every single thing that Luther ever said, but only to those statements that were made official as it were (e.g. in the Augsburg Confession). In much the same way, Orthodox don't claim that every single thing that St. Cyril of Alexandria ever said is correct, but only those statement that were made official (by the Council of Ephesus). Correct me if I'm wrong of course.

You are correct, as the Solid Declaration makes clear not 3 paragraphs later:

Quote
In the third place, since in these last times God, out of especial grace, has brought the truth of His Word to light again from the darkness of the Papacy through the faithful service of the precious man of God, Dr. Luther, and since this doctrine has been collected from, and according to, God's Word into the articles and chapters of the Augsburg Confession against the corruptions of the Papacy and also of other sects, we confess also the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession as our symbol for this time, not because it was composed by our theologians, but because it has been taken from God's Word and is founded firmly and well therein, precisely in the form in which it was committed to writing, in the year 1530, and presented to the Emperor Charles V at Augsburg by some Christian Electors, Princes, and Estates of the Roman Empire as a common confession of the reformed churches, whereby our reformed churches are distinguished from the Papists and other repudiated and condemned sects and heresies, after the custom and usage of the early Church, whereby succeeding councils, Christian bishops and teachers appealed to the Nicene Creed, and confessed it (publicly declared that they embraced it).

6] 4. In the fourth place, as regards the proper and true sense of the oft-quoted Augsburg Confession, an extensive Apology was composed and published in print in 1531, after the presentation of the Confession, in order that we might explain ourselves at greater length and guard against the (slanders of the) Papists, and that condemned errors might not steal into the Church of God under the name of the Augsburg Confession, or dare to seek cover under the same. We unanimously confess this also, because not only is the said Augsburg Confession explained as much as is necessary and guarded (against the slanders of the adversaries), but also proven (confirmed) by clear, irrefutable testimonies of Holy Scripture.

7] 5. In the fifth place, we also confess the Articles composed, approved, and received at Smalcald in the large assembly of theologians, in the year 1537, as they were first framed and printed in order to be delivered in the council at Mantua, or wherever it would be held, in the name of the Estates, Electors, and Princes, as an explanation of the above-mentioned Augsburg Confession, wherein by God's grace they were resolved to abide. In them the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession is repeated, and some articles are explained at greater length from God's Word, and, besides, the cause and grounds are indicated, as far as necessary, why we have abandoned the papistical errors and idolatries, and can have no fellowship with them, and also why we know, and can think of, no way for coming to any agreement with the Pope concerning them.

8] 6. And now, in the sixth place, because these highly important matters (the business of religion) concern also the common people and laymen (as they are called), who, inasmuch as they are Christians, must for their salvation distinguish between pure and false doctrine, we confess also the Small and the Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther, as they were written by him and incorporated in his works, because they have been unanimously approved and received by all churches adhering to the Augsburg Confession, and have been publicly used in churches, schools, and in (private) houses, and, moreover, because the Christian doctrine from God's Word is comprised in them in the most correct and simple way, and, in like manner, is explained, as far as necessary (for simple laymen).

And further, the confessions enumerated above are littered with quotations from the Fathers so exhaustive that I would not even attempt to list them all here.  That does NOT mean Lutherans quote or interpret the Fathers rightly, but it does mean there is quite a bit more to Lutheran theology than "the Bible according to what Dr. Martin Luther said."  Sola scriptura to a Lutheran is (as they believe it) interpreting the Scriptures as (they believe) the Church has always interpreted them.  I disagree their interpretations are accurate in many cases, but they are hardly Martin Luther and his Bible and everyone else shut up and pay attention.

Show me where they quote a church father that contradicts the Dr. Martin Luther?

I am fully aware that Lutherans quote the Church Fathers. I am fully aware of that. I stated what I said for a reason. I am sticking by my previous posts. If you can show me where they side with the Church Fathers against the Dr. Martin Luther then you will have a point. Until then what I said stands.

The later Lutherans may side with Phillop Melancthon against some of the stuff Luther said or they may side with the Reformed against Luther on some stuff, but show me where they will side with the Church Fathers against Luther?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 10:38:58 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/
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 0.208 seconds with 73 queries.