OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 20, 2014, 08:25:15 AM *
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: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23  (Read 12629 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,209


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #90 on: August 11, 2011, 04:09:40 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


- PeterTheAleut
Orthodox-Protestant Discussion Moderator
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 04:21:38 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #91 on: August 11, 2011, 04:33:36 PM »

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

You can't define πάντα όσα εάν in the text we are discussing in this way. You are assuming your interpretation of the meaning of the entire phrase πάντα όσα εάν αιτησητε εν τη προσευχη ('whatsoever you ask in prayer') in Matthew 21:22 is inherent in πάντα όσα εάν itself, and then turning it into a general principle ('whatever' in the Bible means 'Godly things'), with zero justification, in order to apply it to our discussion text. This is ridiculous. What sort of exegetical rule are you following?
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 04:46:31 PM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #92 on: August 11, 2011, 04:40:13 PM »

Our Lord Jesus taught all must obey the Word of God regardless how hypocritical its teachers are. We must not follow those who “say and do not do”---“we are to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). That is the definition of sola scriptura.
That definition works, though, only if we can establish that God speaks only through Scripture, which you have never done convincingly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Reading comprehension is taught in school.

Not mind reading.

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

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

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

Again I failed to communicate.

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

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

They are deduced.

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



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

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,209


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #93 on: August 11, 2011, 05:03:11 PM »

Again I failed to communicate.

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

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

They are deduced.

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



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

I never said the word "alone" is in the verse [2 Timothy 3:15-17], I said it is deducible...
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 05:04:37 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,997



« Reply #94 on: August 11, 2011, 05:34:24 PM »

One important distinction needs to be made.  You are looking at verbum, logos, word as a what.  The verbum Dei, ho logos Theou, word of God is a who, namely Christ, the second Person of the Trinity.  God does not equal Scripture or any thing.  Scripture is an Icon of the Most High but that in itself does not mean it is equal to it. 

BTW, if you want to use Latin, please use it correctly.  It should be solum Verbum Dei as verbum is neuter. I really hate when people try to use Latin to make themselves look intellectually superior but have not clue 1 as to how to use it correctly.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #95 on: August 11, 2011, 05:58:35 PM »

I really hate when people try to use Latin to make themselves look intellectually superior but have not clue 1 as to how to use it correctly.

Have you watched parks and recreation?
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #96 on: August 11, 2011, 06:08:20 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


- PeterTheAleut
Orthodox-Protestant Discussion Moderator


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




For this display of brazen public contempt for a moderatorial directive, you are now on Warned status for the next 90 days. Any more public comment about moderatorial actions taken against you and the instructions you are to follow, and you will be placed immediately on Post Moderation. Feel free to appeal this decision via private message to Veniamin if you think this wrong.

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 06:15:59 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,416


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #97 on: August 11, 2011, 06:11:45 PM »

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

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

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #98 on: August 11, 2011, 06:29:52 PM »

Just to clarify theistgal, as I predicted another reactionary response from someone I was not speaking with, I was speaking to you  police
PP

At this point I've lost track anyway.  Grin
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,492



« Reply #99 on: August 11, 2011, 06:52:22 PM »

Just to clarify theistgal, as I predicted another reactionary response from someone I was not speaking with, I was speaking to you  police
PP

At this point I've lost track anyway.  Grin
Are you sure there even is a track?
Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #100 on: August 11, 2011, 08:03:50 PM »

But we know Paul wrote other letters than just those 15, what makes them noncanonical? If Mark and Luke can write a book, why not Clement? And what of the Apocrypha? Maccabees, Sirach, and Wisdom seem to have been used as much as the OT.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Also you didn't answer my question regarding Clement or the Apocrypha. Also, why not throw in Ignatius and Polycarp, hearers of John, as well since we allow Mark and Luke?
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 08:06:59 PM by Volnutt » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #101 on: August 11, 2011, 08:11:06 PM »

Proof You are Ineffective:

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

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

You need to up your game.

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

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

Listen to me. I might a total waste of life, but I know internetz.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #102 on: August 11, 2011, 09:18:30 PM »

How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

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

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

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #103 on: August 11, 2011, 09:29:27 PM »

How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

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

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

Your not terribly good at this.

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

And really there are so many underlying assumptions you all are holding which are empty, you are arguing the two sides of a used coke bottle.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 09:30:15 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #104 on: August 11, 2011, 10:01:46 PM »

How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

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

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

Your not terribly good at this.

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

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

*You're.  Wink
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #105 on: August 11, 2011, 11:46:59 PM »

How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

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

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

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,209


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #106 on: August 11, 2011, 11:52:48 PM »

How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #107 on: August 11, 2011, 11:54:35 PM »

How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

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

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

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

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

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

I guess coming from my background, I'm only looking at sola scriptura as I've seen it practiced and preached. In such a context, we're told that only the Bible provides us with revelation, the Bible is the Word, the Bible is the complete revelation of God, etc. Yet, from the Bible we learn that the complete revelation of God is the Word (Christ), not Scripture. Regardless, I'm having difficulty accepting that something finite (a book) could contain the infinite.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #108 on: August 12, 2011, 12:00:56 AM »

I'm having difficulty accepting that something finite [] could contain the infinite.

Then perhaps Christianity isn't the religion for you.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,209


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #109 on: August 12, 2011, 12:04:00 AM »

How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #110 on: August 12, 2011, 12:04:55 AM »

How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

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

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

The total time is still a finite number.  Wink

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

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

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,209


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #111 on: August 12, 2011, 12:07:15 AM »

How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

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

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

The total time is still a finite number.  Wink

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

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

And the Incarnation teaches us that the infinite God is contained. So what's your point?
Logged
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #112 on: August 12, 2011, 12:09:50 AM »

How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then again, this could be a bad argument I'm putting forth. It's just something I thought of and wanted to test out. Seeing some of the objections and working through them, while I'm not convinced the argument is incorrect, I am convinced it's weak and that better arguments are probably available. Smiley
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #113 on: August 12, 2011, 12:13:52 AM »

How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

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

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

The total time is still a finite number.  Wink

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

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


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

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

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #114 on: August 12, 2011, 12:18:14 AM »

With Christ we still have two natures, two wills, etc. God still remained unconfined within the Incarnation.

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

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

To the contrary,

Colossians 2:9 (KJV)
For in [Jesus Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 12:21:31 AM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #115 on: August 12, 2011, 12:21:24 AM »

How many pages is the Bible?

Now how many pages can fit the wisdom of God?

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

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

The total time is still a finite number.  Wink

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

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


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

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

I thought I did address them?

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

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

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #116 on: August 12, 2011, 12:22:38 AM »

I thought I did address them?

My post came too late. My apologies.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 12:23:42 AM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #117 on: August 12, 2011, 12:25:00 AM »

With Christ we still have two natures, two wills, etc. God still remained unconfined within the Incarnation.

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

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

To the contrary,

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

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

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

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

Perhaps I have simply failed in communicating my thoughts, that or I should have put a disclaimer that my argument was merely an experiment to see where the ideas went.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 12:25:52 AM by theo philosopher » Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #118 on: August 12, 2011, 12:27:39 AM »

the argument implies that God's wisdom is somehow divisible

That's one of the things I was trying to get at when I said you were treating knowledge as something quantifiable.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,715


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #119 on: August 12, 2011, 12:28:31 AM »

Quote
The Father did not participate in the Incarnation, nor did the Spirit.


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

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

Ummm, what say you, theo philosopher?

Logged
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #120 on: August 12, 2011, 12:29:16 AM »

the argument implies that God's wisdom is somehow divisible

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

I'm still thinking through the issue of sola scriptura of course. It's bothered me for quite some time and I know there are logical problems with it, I'm just formulating those ideas as they come to me.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #121 on: August 12, 2011, 12:30:10 AM »

Quote
The Father did not participate in the Incarnation, nor did the Spirit.


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

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

Ummm, what say you, theo philosopher?



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

As an addendum:

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

That is what I had in mind when I said "participate."
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 12:35:51 AM by theo philosopher » Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #122 on: August 12, 2011, 12:36:12 AM »

With Christ we still have two natures, two wills, etc. God still remained unconfined within the Incarnation.

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

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

To the contrary,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The WHOLE GOD is incarnate. I can say that and still maintain that, of the Hypostases, only the Son is incarnate.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 12:43:28 AM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #123 on: August 12, 2011, 12:43:07 AM »

With Christ we still have two natures, two wills, etc. God still remained unconfined within the Incarnation.

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

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

To the contrary,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I fail to see how I was implying the Trinity was divisible, merely pointing out that only one Person within the Trinity became Incarnate. So while it is appropriate to say that God became flesh, that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, that God emptied Himself in becoming a man, it would be inappropriate to think that this equally applied to the Father and Spirit. That is the point I've been trying to get across in the last few posts.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #124 on: August 12, 2011, 12:45:22 AM »

To argue that the Father and Spirit participated in the Incarnation (that is, became incarnate with the Son) would be Sabellianism (modalism).

I'm not arguing for that.

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

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

Because that is by definition saying, a part of God is incarnate.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 12:49:27 AM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,209


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #125 on: August 12, 2011, 12:50:53 AM »

Okay, let's chill out, everyone. This thread is about Alfred Persson's understanding of sola scriptura, not about the theological fallacies inherent in theo philosopher's less than stellar analogy. Let's leave theo alone and get back on topic.

Thank you.
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #126 on: August 12, 2011, 12:55:36 AM »

This all started when Peter pointed out the inconsistency of your claim that the finite cannot contain the infinite with the doctrine of the Incarnation. You then denied the inconsistency by claiming the entire God wasn't contained in the Incarnation. But

3 x infinity is the same as 1 x infinity.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #127 on: August 12, 2011, 12:56:31 AM »

Okay, let's chill out, everyone. This thread is about Alfred Persson's understanding of sola scriptura, not about the theological fallacies inherent in theo philosopher's less than stellar analogy. Let's leave theo alone and get back on topic.

Thank you.


Sorry. Saw this after I posted. I gotta go to bed anyway.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #128 on: August 12, 2011, 01:49:12 AM »

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

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

Contextual usage principle.

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

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



Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #129 on: August 12, 2011, 01:51:19 AM »

Again I failed to communicate.

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

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

They are deduced.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

That means sola scriptura is a rule of the faith.

« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 01:55:40 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
DennyB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 224


Moving Toward Orthodoxy


« Reply #130 on: August 12, 2011, 05:24:45 AM »

Again I failed to communicate.

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

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

They are deduced.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

That means sola scriptura is a rule of the faith.



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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,427


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #131 on: August 12, 2011, 05:42:52 AM »

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

That means sola scriptura is a rule of the faith.

No, it doesn't.

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

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/
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #132 on: August 12, 2011, 07:40:12 AM »

Again I failed to communicate.

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

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

They are deduced.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

That means sola scriptura is a rule of the faith.



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

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

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

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

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

That isn't taught in scripture.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #133 on: August 12, 2011, 08:03:03 AM »

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

That means sola scriptura is a rule of the faith.

No, it doesn't.

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


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

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

The ASV is considered very literal:

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

Every scripture; All scripture > Every verse in Scripture

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

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

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

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


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


No matter how hard I look, i can't find that idea in the text.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 08:05:20 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #134 on: August 12, 2011, 08:39:40 AM »

BTW, if you want to use Latin, please use it correctly.  It should be solum Verbum Dei as verbum is neuter.

Didn't it ought to be ablative? solo verbo dei? I thought the other solas are all ablative - gratia, fide, scriptura - but I may be wrong.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Tags: Perssonism 
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 0.202 seconds with 74 queries.