OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 02:14:00 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: In defense of sola scriptura  (Read 2224 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« on: May 19, 2012, 09:00:26 PM »

The typical EO argument against sola scriptura runs something like this:

Quote
There was no canon of Scripture approved by the Church for the first 400 years of its existence. The New Testament writings that we find in our Bible today were completed between approximately 60 -100 A.D., the last being nearly 70 years after the death of Christ.  These writings were used during the liturgies, just as they are in the Church today, and were presided over by ordained priests who were in submission to ordained bishops in each of these ecclesial communitites.  Due to logistics and the lack of any sort of printing press, these writings were not wide spread and all of them certainly did not exist in every community at one time. They relied on Sacred Tradition, for the most part, in order to receive the word of God. Sacred Tradition possessed the fulness of truth that they had received from the Apostles, regardless of whether or not they had a copy of any of the sacred writings. Any writing was held up to scrutiny based upon the Sacred Tradition, and if it passed the test, it could be used.

However, explain how all of the various gnostic communities scattered throughout Asia Minor were capable of procuring copies of the gospels and Paul's epistles.

Also, apostolic succession is a myth crafted to direct Christian discourse into "arguments by appeal to authority" and to set up images of Christianity in which a particular tradition's adherents may always claim the upper hand in debates about "right" dogma.  It's predicated on the fallacy of ipse dixit and it is inevitably also based upon circular logic.  The remainder of discussion in this thread will prove that and I won't need say anything more.  Biblical support for apostolic succession is tenuous, at best.  It takes some creative interpretation to start from "on this rock I will build my Church" and "binding and loosing" and end up with Apostolic Succession, and even then, as the honest historian will note, preferring to dispense with "orthodox mythology," such interpretation was inconsistent and only eventually consensual.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,892


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2012, 09:20:27 PM »

However, explain how all of the various gnostic communities scattered throughout Asia Minor were capable of procuring copies of the gospels and Paul's epistles.

By making up their own epistles and crediting them to Paul? None of the gnostic Gospels and Epistles are really accurate. I don't see where you are going with this.


Quote
Also, apostolic succession is a myth crafted to direct Christian discourse into "arguments by appeal to authority" and to set up images of Christianity in which a particular tradition's adherents may always claim the upper hand in debates about "right" dogma.  It's predicated on the fallacy of ipse dixit and it is inevitably also based upon circular logic.  The remainder of discussion in this thread will prove that and I won't need say anything more.

And apostolic succession not being important is a myth developed by Protestant communities that cannot trace their history back further than 100 years. We have support for our apostolic roots through Saints and figures in our Church who were very close to the Apostles, like St. Irenious (sp?) along with the fact that each of the main Patriarchates has a record of all past Patriarchates from the present one all the way back to an Apostle. Likewise, we have very early Epistles from the 1st century which bear witness to the way our Church functioned and sometimes mention an Apostle establishing or previously visiting the Church. Likewise, you can accuse of all the logical fallacies you want, but it does not change the fact that having history on our side does give us an upperhand in defining dogma and debates. Jesus Christ said that He would NEVER let the Gates of Hell prevail against His Church, and the way we determine which Church He was referring to is through history. Jesus sent His Apostles to expand the Church, therefore we know that Jesus was referring to us when He mentioned the Gates of Hell never prevailing against the Church. You can disregard history if you like, but it also means disregarding Jesus Christ's own words and promise, thus either making Him a liar or incapable of following through with what He promised. Pick your heresy.

Quote
Biblical support for apostolic succession is tenuous, at best.  It takes some creative interpretation to start from "on this rock I will build my Church" and "binding and loosing" and end up with Apostolic Succession

The Bible is not the only source of history to prove our Apostolic succession, I already listen you several of the areas earlier. Likewise, all history relies on creative interpretation to an extent, and if you are only going to go by the Bible as your history source, then yes, you will run into many inconsistencies and errors trying to reconcile Apostolic succession solely based on the Bible. But none of us are claiming that the Bible is the only source to prove our Apostolic succession.

Quote
and even then, as the honest historian will note, preferring to dispense with "orthodox mythology," such interpretation was inconsistent and only eventually consensual.

Of course it is when you only rely on the Bible to get your history
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2012, 09:35:18 PM »


 I don't see where you are going with this.

Of course you, of all people on this forum, wouldn't. 


Quote

And apostolic succession not being important is a myth developed by Protestant communities that cannot trace their history back further than 100 years. We have support for our apostolic roots through Saints and figures in our Church who were very close to the Apostles, like St. Irenious (sp?) along with the fact that each of the main Patriarchates has a record of all past Patriarchates from the present one all the way back to an Apostle. Likewise, we have very early Epistles from the 1st century which bear witness to the way our Church functioned and sometimes mention an Apostle establishing or previously visiting the Church. Likewise, you can accuse of all the logical fallacies you want, but it does not change the fact that having history on our side does give us an upperhand in defining dogma and debates. Jesus Christ said that He would NEVER let the Gates of Hell prevail against His Church, and the way we determine which Church He was referring to is through history. Jesus sent His Apostles to expand the Church, therefore we know that Jesus was referring to us when He mentioned the Gates of Hell never prevailing against the Church. You can disregard history if you like, but it also means disregarding Jesus Christ's own words and promise, thus either making Him a liar or incapable of following through with what He promised. Pick your heresy.

Ipse dixit.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2012, 09:47:32 PM »

It takes some creative interpretation to start from "on this rock I will build my Church" and "binding and loosing"

Don't forget the epsitles to Timothy and Titus where Paul gives them instruction on appointing bishops and deacons and recalls Timothy's ordination twice, once as being given by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery and again by the laying on of Paul's own hands.

The NT isn't a "rule book/liturgical manual" like the OT even though Christians are mentioned as celebrating "the breaking of the bread" and the apostlse are mentioned as keeping the hours of prayer.

There is also the fact that, in practice, no written document has ever exercised any authority on its own. The OT called for religious leaders to teach, interpret, and enforce the law with authority. The apostles acted with authority and passed that authority on to the bishops/elders. Even the U.S. Constitution requires a government, and not just any government but the U.S. government, to interpret and enforce it. Another group of people could form their own seperate country with their own seperate government modelled on the U.S. Constitution, but that would not automatically make them the United States or change the fact that they would still be a seperate nation with a seperate government.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Valekhai
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: atheist
Posts: 45



« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2012, 10:01:44 PM »

This looks more like an attack on apostolic succession rather than a defense of sola scriptura. I'm not going to defend apostolic succession since I don't have a dog in this fight, but I would be interested to hear any actual support of sola scriptura that you might have to offer.
Logged
Happy Lutheran
Servant of Christ
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Lutheran
Posts: 258



« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2012, 10:04:52 PM »

Depends on the argument, surly sola scripture is sufficient for the ultimate goal, which is salvation of our souls and everlasting life with Christ. In fact the Gospel of John states:

John 20: 30-31

'Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But THESE are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.'

This clearly states that Jesus did many other things, HOWEVER just John's Gospel, not even all of Canon Scripture is written so we can believe and be saved.
Logged

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2012, 10:05:04 PM »

The typical EO argument against sola scriptura runs something like this:

Quote
There was no canon of Scripture approved by the Church for the first 400 years of its existence. The New Testament writings that we find in our Bible today were completed between approximately 60 -100 A.D., the last being nearly 70 years after the death of Christ.  These writings were used during the liturgies, just as they are in the Church today, and were presided over by ordained priests who were in submission to ordained bishops in each of these ecclesial communitites.  Due to logistics and the lack of any sort of printing press, these writings were not wide spread and all of them certainly did not exist in every community at one time. They relied on Sacred Tradition, for the most part, in order to receive the word of God. Sacred Tradition possessed the fulness of truth that they had received from the Apostles, regardless of whether or not they had a copy of any of the sacred writings. Any writing was held up to scrutiny based upon the Sacred Tradition, and if it passed the test, it could be used.
Actually, my typical argument against sola scriptura is the sheer number of Protestant denominations, each with different dogma and doctrine, and each claiming to follow the Bible alone. Sola Scrpitura is like Communism- nice in theory, horrible in practice.
However, explain how all of the various gnostic communities scattered throughout Asia Minor were capable of procuring copies of the gospels and Paul's epistles.
Seeing as how, with the exception of the Epistle to the Romans, all the other Epistles were written either to cities in Asia Minor, or just a short hop across the isthmus from Asia Minor, it doesn't seem like a huge leap that these Epistles would be widespread throughout Asia Minor fairly early in the Church's history. Also take into account that the Gospels were among the first books to be taken to new church communities, Jerusalem was not all that far from Asia Minor itself, Asia Minor was an early center of Christianity, and the Gospel of St John was written in Ephesus. Now, if you had evidence of the Gospels and the Epistles of St Paul in early 2nd Century Britain or India, my mind might be properly blown.

Also, apostolic succession is a myth crafted to direct Christian discourse into "arguments by appeal to authority" and to set up images of Christianity in which a particular tradition's adherents may always claim the upper hand in debates about "right" dogma.  
Two things- Apostolic Succession was extremely useful for establishing the Orthodoxy of certain teachings within the early Church. If one "church" was interpreting Scripture, apart from Apostolic Succession, in a strange light, Churches with Apostolic Succession could (and were) be appealed to as the basis for the correct interpretation. Thus, even a church in Britain, founded by St Joseph of Arimithea and without use of the Gospels, could say to a gnostic denying the bodily resurrection "That doesn't quite work."

The other thing- Churches that claim Apostolic Succession are pretty close in matters of dogma. The only divergence arise after those churches leave communion with one another. The churches are all almost spot-on in matters of practice (at least before 1960).

It's predicated on the fallacy of ipse dixit and it is inevitably also based upon circular logic.
And Protestant private interpretation isn't?

The remainder of discussion in this thread will prove that and I won't need say anything more.
So we might as well call this thread closed and go home.
 Biblical support for apostolic succession is tenuous, at best.  It takes some creative interpretation to start from "on this rock I will build my Church" and "binding and loosing" and end up with Apostolic Succession,
It takes less creative interpretation to read through the Acts of the Apostles, where Sts Peter and Paul set up Churches, as supporting Apostolic Succession. The Epistles to Timothy and Titus act as pretty good linchpins.
and even then, as the honest historian will note,
Read: "as the historians who agree with what I am saying will note,"
preferring to dispense with "orthodox mythology," history
Fixed that for you.

 
such interpretation was inconsistent and only eventually consensual.

Yep. So inconsistent that churches spanning from India to Britain both claimed Apostolic Succession from an early time, despite being out of communication with the main body of the Roman Empire (India never being in the Roman Empire) from fairly early on. So "only eventually consensual" that every record from an actual Christian Church appeals to Apostolic Succession in some form or another dating to the early 2nd Century- just a few years after the death of St John.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 10:24:24 PM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,966


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2012, 10:20:41 PM »

mint,

Would you mind doing us a favor by changing the text in the "Faith" field under your avatar? You are most definitely NOT becoming Orthodox if you can say with a straight face what you're saying about Scripture and apostolic succession.
Logged
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2012, 10:23:56 PM »

mint,

Would you mind doing us a favor by changing the text in the "Faith" field under your avatar? You are most definitely NOT becoming Orthodox if you can say with a straight face what you're saying about Scripture and apostolic succession.

Headed to Divine Liturgy tomorrow morning.  See you there.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2012, 10:46:27 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The problem with the more modern interpretations of sola scripture doctrines is that they entirely misunderstand that all of the Holy Tradition is IN the Holy Scriptures.  The priesthood and clergy are in the Old and New Testaments.  The Divine Mysteries are in the Old and New Testaments.  The architecture, government, dress, diet, all aspects of the Church are in the Holy Scriptures.  There are no contradictions or complications.  The Holy Tradition is an exposition explaining the connections.  We understand each mutually through the other.  To deny the authority of the Holy Tradition is to completely misunderstand and misinterpret the Holy Scriptures from which the Holy Tradition is founded.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2012, 10:49:45 PM »



Yep. So inconsistent that churches spanning from India to Britain both claimed Apostolic Succession from an early time, despite being out of communication with the main body of the Roman Empire (India never being in the Roman Empire) from fairly early on. So "only eventually consensual" that every record from an actual Christian Church appeals to Apostolic Succession in some form or another dating to the early 2nd Century- just a few years after the death of St John.


What these churches claimed was an apostolic faith, not succession.  Back to the sources.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,966


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2012, 10:52:03 PM »



Yep. So inconsistent that churches spanning from India to Britain both claimed Apostolic Succession from an early time, despite being out of communication with the main body of the Roman Empire (India never being in the Roman Empire) from fairly early on. So "only eventually consensual" that every record from an actual Christian Church appeals to Apostolic Succession in some form or another dating to the early 2nd Century- just a few years after the death of St John.


What these churches claimed was an apostolic faith, not succession.  Back to the sources.
Would you be willing to cite these sources to show how they defend your position?
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,892


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2012, 10:53:48 PM »

Of course you, of all people on this forum, wouldn't.

Actually, I would, considering I went through everything you and all Protestants go through and I came out an Orthodox Christian. No need to be an a** buddy.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2012, 10:55:07 PM »



Yep. So inconsistent that churches spanning from India to Britain both claimed Apostolic Succession from an early time, despite being out of communication with the main body of the Roman Empire (India never being in the Roman Empire) from fairly early on. So "only eventually consensual" that every record from an actual Christian Church appeals to Apostolic Succession in some form or another dating to the early 2nd Century- just a few years after the death of St John.


What these churches claimed was an apostolic faith, not succession.  Back to the sources.
Would you be willing to cite these sources to show how they defend your position?

I am merely clarifying the "mythology" of FormerReformer based on the same sources we are all familiar with.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2012, 10:55:54 PM »

Actually, I would, considering I went through everything you and all Protestants go through and I came out an Orthodox Christian. No need to be an a** buddy.

I've never been a Protestant buddy.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,966


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2012, 11:00:06 PM »



Yep. So inconsistent that churches spanning from India to Britain both claimed Apostolic Succession from an early time, despite being out of communication with the main body of the Roman Empire (India never being in the Roman Empire) from fairly early on. So "only eventually consensual" that every record from an actual Christian Church appeals to Apostolic Succession in some form or another dating to the early 2nd Century- just a few years after the death of St John.


What these churches claimed was an apostolic faith, not succession.  Back to the sources.
Would you be willing to cite these sources to show how they defend your position?

I am merely clarifying the "mythology" of FormerReformer based on the same sources we are all familiar with.
Would you be willing to show us how these sources defend your position?
Logged
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2012, 11:06:45 PM »



Yep. So inconsistent that churches spanning from India to Britain both claimed Apostolic Succession from an early time, despite being out of communication with the main body of the Roman Empire (India never being in the Roman Empire) from fairly early on. So "only eventually consensual" that every record from an actual Christian Church appeals to Apostolic Succession in some form or another dating to the early 2nd Century- just a few years after the death of St John.


What these churches claimed was an apostolic faith, not succession.  Back to the sources.
Would you be willing to cite these sources to show how they defend your position?

I am merely clarifying the "mythology" of FormerReformer based on the same sources we are all familiar with.
Would you be willing to show us how these sources defend your position?

Yes.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
Jason.Wike
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,046


« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2012, 11:27:51 PM »

Quote
However, explain how all of the various gnostic communities scattered throughout Asia Minor were capable of procuring copies of the gospels and Paul's epistles.

Did they actually, though? Where are you getting this information that they did?
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2012, 11:30:33 PM »



Yep. So inconsistent that churches spanning from India to Britain both claimed Apostolic Succession from an early time, despite being out of communication with the main body of the Roman Empire (India never being in the Roman Empire) from fairly early on. So "only eventually consensual" that every record from an actual Christian Church appeals to Apostolic Succession in some form or another dating to the early 2nd Century- just a few years after the death of St John.


What these churches claimed was an apostolic faith, not succession.  Back to the sources.
Would you be willing to cite these sources to show how they defend your position?

I am merely clarifying the "mythology" of FormerReformer based on the same sources we are all familiar with.

The mythology that the churches of India claimed to be founded by St Thomas, or that the churches of Britain claimed to be founded by St Joseph of Arimathea, or the mythology that St Polycarp disputed with the Bishop of Rome that his apostolic practice (for the date of Pascha) was handed down by St John and that both Rome and Ephesus' practice had their roots in the Apostles?

In Orthodoxy you cannot separate apostolic faith from apostolic succession, something that all those sources I spoke of will agree to. Apostolic Succession is not some magic trick that guarantees the infallibility of the bishop who possesses it, it is but one part of the Apostolic tradition that guarantees the Apostolic faith is being held. St Polycarp can appeal to St John because he knew St John, the Bishop of Rome agrees with St Polycarp, not because he knew Sts Peter and Paul, but because the bishop before him knew the bishop before him who did. All Apostolic Succession means is that there is an unbroken line of bishops going back to the twelve Apostles and that each of those bishops keeps the traditions those Apostles handed down.

Without Apostolic Succession, you need something to take its place, some way of asserting that the teachings your "church" teaches are in line with the teachings and faith of the Apostles. Sola Scriptura doesn't cut it, because you have a very long period where Sola Scriptura was unheard of. This is why the Baptists developed the "Landmark theory" and various Protestant denominations hold to the "Apostate Church" theory (which itself conflicts with Sola Scriptura and our Lord's promise that against the Church the gates of hell would not prevail- if Protestant beliefs are correct, the gates of hell prevailed from the death of St John to the time of Martin Luther!).
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,966


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2012, 12:12:16 AM »



Yep. So inconsistent that churches spanning from India to Britain both claimed Apostolic Succession from an early time, despite being out of communication with the main body of the Roman Empire (India never being in the Roman Empire) from fairly early on. So "only eventually consensual" that every record from an actual Christian Church appeals to Apostolic Succession in some form or another dating to the early 2nd Century- just a few years after the death of St John.


What these churches claimed was an apostolic faith, not succession.  Back to the sources.
Would you be willing to cite these sources to show how they defend your position?

I am merely clarifying the "mythology" of FormerReformer based on the same sources we are all familiar with.
Would you be willing to show us how these sources defend your position?

Yes.
Well...?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,239


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2012, 12:20:36 AM »



Yep. So inconsistent that churches spanning from India to Britain both claimed Apostolic Succession from an early time, despite being out of communication with the main body of the Roman Empire (India never being in the Roman Empire) from fairly early on. So "only eventually consensual" that every record from an actual Christian Church appeals to Apostolic Succession in some form or another dating to the early 2nd Century- just a few years after the death of St John.


What these churches claimed was an apostolic faith, not succession.  Back to the sources.

We have documents dating from the 2nd century or earlier from Africa, Rome, Syria, and France which all defend apostolic succession. I don't know about places like India, partly because I'm simply unfamiliar with the local Churches there, but the idea did seem to be held across several cultures/geographical regions, and defended by theologians who do not seem to have influenced each other.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2012, 12:22:47 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2012, 08:21:12 AM »



We have documents dating from the 2nd century or earlier from Africa, Rome, Syria, and France which all defend apostolic succession. I don't know about places like India, partly because I'm simply unfamiliar with the local Churches there, but the idea did seem to be held across several cultures/geographical regions, and defended by theologians who do not seem to have influenced each other.

Empty conjecture.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2012, 08:36:46 AM »

The typical EO argument against sola scriptura runs something like this:

Quote
There was no canon ... it could be used.

However, explain how all of the various gnostic communities scattered throughout Asia Minor were capable of procuring copies of the gospels and Paul's epistles.

What has you 'EO argument against sole scriptura' got to do with production of Gnostics texts?  The whole idea of Sola scriptura happened hundreds of years later.
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2012, 08:45:43 AM »

The typical EO argument against sola scriptura runs something like this:

Quote
There was no canon ... it could be used.

However, explain how all of the various gnostic communities scattered throughout Asia Minor were capable of procuring copies of the gospels and Paul's epistles.

What has you 'EO argument against sole scriptura' got to do with production of Gnostics texts?  The whole idea of Sola scriptura happened hundreds of years later.
^^
That's exactly what got me out of the Methodist church. They claim not believe in sola scriptura, but in the American South, often times they are indistinguishable in doctrine from any other Protestant. Why would a novel doctrine 15 centuries after Christ trump the previously transmitted tradition from Him just because a jaded German monk said so?

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2012, 08:46:24 AM »

The typical EO argument against sola scriptura runs something like this:

Quote
There was no canon ... it could be used.

However, explain how all of the various gnostic communities scattered throughout Asia Minor were capable of procuring copies of the gospels and Paul's epistles.

What has you 'EO argument against sole scriptura' got to do with production of Gnostics texts?  The whole idea of Sola scriptura happened hundreds of years later.

Reread the typical EO argument.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #25 on: May 20, 2012, 08:48:32 AM »

Reread the typical EO argument.

I did - what's it got to do with Gnostics texts?
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #26 on: May 20, 2012, 08:52:38 AM »

Reread the typical EO argument.

I did - what's it got to do with Gnostics texts?

It has nothing to do with Gnostic texts, it has everything to do with Gnostics having access to the (later) NT canon.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #27 on: May 20, 2012, 09:03:56 AM »


It has nothing to do with Gnostic texts, it has everything to do with Gnostics having access to the (later) NT canon.

Your'e lost me.

What has your 'EO argument against sole scriptuira' got to do with Gnostics anyway?
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,966


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #28 on: May 20, 2012, 10:36:29 AM »

Reread the typical EO argument.

I did - what's it got to do with Gnostics texts?

It has nothing to do with Gnostic texts, it has everything to do with Gnostics having access to the (later) NT canon.
You're


speaking


cryptically


here.


Would you mind elaborating on what you think are your salient points?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,239


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #29 on: May 20, 2012, 10:50:05 AM »



We have documents dating from the 2nd century or earlier from Africa, Rome, Syria, and France which all defend apostolic succession. I don't know about places like India, partly because I'm simply unfamiliar with the local Churches there, but the idea did seem to be held across several cultures/geographical regions, and defended by theologians who do not seem to have influenced each other.

Empty conjecture.

You can lead a troll to water, but you can't make him drink, I suppose.
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 20, 2012, 02:39:01 PM »

Reread the typical EO argument.

I did - what's it got to do with Gnostics texts?

It has nothing to do with Gnostic texts, it has everything to do with Gnostics having access to the (later) NT canon.

Except everything you pointed out in your post regarding Gnostics involved (earlier) NT canon, with the exception of St John's Gospel, which is also easily explained since (a) you limited your Gnostics to the realm of Asia Minor, which is where the Gospel was written and (b) the Gospel was written to refute early brands of Gnosticism.

The contention you are arguing against isn't that Churches near the writing and intended recipients of portions of the canon wouldn't have had largely intact copies of the NT canon. The type of Orthodox poster you have in mind isn't arguing that the Orthodox Church wrote the entirety of the canon just prior to St Athanasius, but that the canon itself wasn't codified until around that time and that geographically remote early adopters of Christianity wouldn't have had access to the entire canon for the first few centuries after their writing. Asia Minor was far from geographically remote (more like ground zero) from the center and spread of Christianity, and it is because the Churches (and heretics) of Asia Minor had most of these writings that they were accepted into the canon.

In order for you to support a Sola Scriptura position using your argument, you would need to demonstrate the presence and possession of the entirety of the New Testament canon in early 2nd Century Britain or India. And even then, you would need a quotation from some early British or Indian author regarding the importance of these writings over their received oral tradition.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2012, 02:43:29 PM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 20, 2012, 02:54:18 PM »



We have documents dating from the 2nd century or earlier from Africa, Rome, Syria, and France which all defend apostolic succession. I don't know about places like India, partly because I'm simply unfamiliar with the local Churches there, but the idea did seem to be held across several cultures/geographical regions, and defended by theologians who do not seem to have influenced each other.

Empty conjecture.

Lol, that's not even a conjecture.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

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


« Reply #32 on: May 20, 2012, 08:49:14 PM »

The typical EO argument against sola scriptura runs something like this:

Quote
There was no canon of Scripture approved by the Church for the first 400 years of its existence. The New Testament writings that we find in our Bible today were completed between approximately 60 -100 A.D., the last being nearly 70 years after the death of Christ.  These writings were used during the liturgies, just as they are in the Church today, and were presided over by ordained priests who were in submission to ordained bishops in each of these ecclesial communitites.  Due to logistics and the lack of any sort of printing press, these writings were not wide spread and all of them certainly did not exist in every community at one time. They relied on Sacred Tradition, for the most part, in order to receive the word of God. Sacred Tradition possessed the fulness of truth that they had received from the Apostles, regardless of whether or not they had a copy of any of the sacred writings. Any writing was held up to scrutiny based upon the Sacred Tradition, and if it passed the test, it could be used.

However, explain how all of the various gnostic communities scattered throughout Asia Minor were capable of procuring copies of the gospels and Paul's epistles.

Also, apostolic succession is a myth crafted to direct Christian discourse into "arguments by appeal to authority" and to set up images of Christianity in which a particular tradition's adherents may always claim the upper hand in debates about "right" dogma.  It's predicated on the fallacy of ipse dixit and it is inevitably also based upon circular logic.  The remainder of discussion in this thread will prove that and I won't need say anything more.  Biblical support for apostolic succession is tenuous, at best.  It takes some creative interpretation to start from "on this rock I will build my Church" and "binding and loosing" and end up with Apostolic Succession, and even then, as the honest historian will note, preferring to dispense with "orthodox mythology," such interpretation was inconsistent and only eventually consensual.

"Also, the doctrine of precedent is a myth crafted to direct legal discourse into "arguments by appeal to authority" and to set up images of the common law in which a particular legal tradition's adherents may always claim the upper hand in debates about "right" doctrine. It's predicated on the fallacy of ipse dixit and it is inevitably also based upon circular logic. The remainder of discussion in this thread will prove that and I won't need say anything more. Statutory support for the doctrine of precedent is tenuous, at best."

See how stupid it sounds, now?
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 20, 2012, 09:05:23 PM »

The typical EO argument against sola scriptura runs something like this:

Quote
There was no canon of Scripture approved by the Church for the first 400 years of its existence. The New Testament writings that we find in our Bible today were completed between approximately 60 -100 A.D., the last being nearly 70 years after the death of Christ.  These writings were used during the liturgies, just as they are in the Church today, and were presided over by ordained priests who were in submission to ordained bishops in each of these ecclesial communitites.  Due to logistics and the lack of any sort of printing press, these writings were not wide spread and all of them certainly did not exist in every community at one time. They relied on Sacred Tradition, for the most part, in order to receive the word of God. Sacred Tradition possessed the fulness of truth that they had received from the Apostles, regardless of whether or not they had a copy of any of the sacred writings. Any writing was held up to scrutiny based upon the Sacred Tradition, and if it passed the test, it could be used.

However, explain how all of the various gnostic communities scattered throughout Asia Minor were capable of procuring copies of the gospels and Paul's epistles.

Also, apostolic succession is a myth crafted to direct Christian discourse into "arguments by appeal to authority" and to set up images of Christianity in which a particular tradition's adherents may always claim the upper hand in debates about "right" dogma.  It's predicated on the fallacy of ipse dixit and it is inevitably also based upon circular logic.  The remainder of discussion in this thread will prove that and I won't need say anything more.  Biblical support for apostolic succession is tenuous, at best.  It takes some creative interpretation to start from "on this rock I will build my Church" and "binding and loosing" and end up with Apostolic Succession, and even then, as the honest historian will note, preferring to dispense with "orthodox mythology," such interpretation was inconsistent and only eventually consensual.

"Also, the doctrine of precedent is a myth crafted to direct legal discourse into "arguments by appeal to authority" and to set up images of the common law in which a particular legal tradition's adherents may always claim the upper hand in debates about "right" doctrine. It's predicated on the fallacy of ipse dixit and it is inevitably also based upon circular logic. The remainder of discussion in this thread will prove that and I won't need say anything more. Statutory support for the doctrine of precedent is tenuous, at best."

See how stupid it sounds, now?

Your quotation brings up an additional thought as to the OP- isn't it a little disingenuous to dismiss Apostolic Tradition (Succession, in the OP's words) as "argument by appeal to authority" when the whole question of Sola Scriptura/Church Tradition is exactly which authority to appeal to?
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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

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


« Reply #34 on: May 20, 2012, 09:12:46 PM »

The typical EO argument against sola scriptura runs something like this:

Quote
There was no canon of Scripture approved by the Church for the first 400 years of its existence. The New Testament writings that we find in our Bible today were completed between approximately 60 -100 A.D., the last being nearly 70 years after the death of Christ.  These writings were used during the liturgies, just as they are in the Church today, and were presided over by ordained priests who were in submission to ordained bishops in each of these ecclesial communitites.  Due to logistics and the lack of any sort of printing press, these writings were not wide spread and all of them certainly did not exist in every community at one time. They relied on Sacred Tradition, for the most part, in order to receive the word of God. Sacred Tradition possessed the fulness of truth that they had received from the Apostles, regardless of whether or not they had a copy of any of the sacred writings. Any writing was held up to scrutiny based upon the Sacred Tradition, and if it passed the test, it could be used.

However, explain how all of the various gnostic communities scattered throughout Asia Minor were capable of procuring copies of the gospels and Paul's epistles.

Also, apostolic succession is a myth crafted to direct Christian discourse into "arguments by appeal to authority" and to set up images of Christianity in which a particular tradition's adherents may always claim the upper hand in debates about "right" dogma.  It's predicated on the fallacy of ipse dixit and it is inevitably also based upon circular logic.  The remainder of discussion in this thread will prove that and I won't need say anything more.  Biblical support for apostolic succession is tenuous, at best.  It takes some creative interpretation to start from "on this rock I will build my Church" and "binding and loosing" and end up with Apostolic Succession, and even then, as the honest historian will note, preferring to dispense with "orthodox mythology," such interpretation was inconsistent and only eventually consensual.

"Also, the doctrine of precedent is a myth crafted to direct legal discourse into "arguments by appeal to authority" and to set up images of the common law in which a particular legal tradition's adherents may always claim the upper hand in debates about "right" doctrine. It's predicated on the fallacy of ipse dixit and it is inevitably also based upon circular logic. The remainder of discussion in this thread will prove that and I won't need say anything more. Statutory support for the doctrine of precedent is tenuous, at best."

See how stupid it sounds, now?

Your quotation brings up an additional thought as to the OP- isn't it a little disingenuous to dismiss Apostolic Tradition (Succession, in the OP's words) as "argument by appeal to authority" when the whole question of Sola Scriptura/Church Tradition is exactly which authority to appeal to?

Yes, precisely!
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,966


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #35 on: May 20, 2012, 09:17:43 PM »

Additionally, I'm not sure mint even understands what the "appeal to authority" fallacy is. The fallacy lies largely in appealing to the wrong authority. It's like appealing to the authority of a PhD in history in the course of a debate on astrophysics.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,441



WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 20, 2012, 10:19:12 PM »

Additionally, I'm not sure mint even understands what the "appeal to authority" fallacy is. The fallacy lies largely in appealing to the wrong authority. It's like appealing to the authority of a PhD in history in the course of a debate on astrophysics.

Waitasecond- you mean I shouldn't have cited Stephen Hawking in my report on the myth cycles of Asian cultures? There goes my grade for that paper!
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
pmpn8rGPT
Grammar Nazi in three languages.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox (old calendarist)
Posts: 1,038


Proof that Russia won the Space Race.


« Reply #37 on: September 25, 2012, 11:04:59 PM »

"Peter" is incorrectly translated as "rock" in most protestant Bibles for Matthew 16:18 and we know for a fact that St. Peter taught it to the early church and that Linus succeeded him and we know for a fact that the early church practiced it.
Logged

"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #38 on: September 26, 2012, 03:43:06 AM »

"Peter" is incorrectly translated as "rock" in most protestant Bibles for Matthew 16:18 and we know for a fact that St. Peter taught it to the early church and that Linus succeeded him and we know for a fact that the early church practiced it.

No we don't. There are at least two conflicting accounts regarding St. Linus - one claims he was the second Bishop of Rome after St. Peter, the other (and more likely correct, in my opinion, given that St. Peter wasn't ever bishop of Rome and didn't go to Rome until later) has Linus ordained by St. Paul as the first bishop of Rome and St. Peter not involved at all until the ordination of St. Clement.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.153 seconds with 68 queries.