Author Topic: is sola scriptura Biblical?  (Read 6483 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pmpn8rGPT

  • Grammar Nazi in three languages.
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,038
  • Proof that Russia won the Space Race.
is sola scriptura Biblical?
« on: September 25, 2012, 08:28:00 PM »
so I was just finished reading The Holy Scriptures and I noticed something which caught my attention. 
Acts 15 describes the Council of Jerusalem.  Obviously I knew about this council and I knew it was described in Acts but I thought to myself "if the apostles held council and, presumably, taught others to have council (which we know they did historically) than does the Bible disprove sola scriptura?  It appears protestants should pay more attention.

anyways, I just thought this was interesting, so what does OC.net think
"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.

Offline WPM

  • Revolutionary Writer
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,202
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2012, 09:13:47 PM »
I don't exactly know what OC.net says about Protestant Sola Scriptura except maybe that it uses the Christian Bible in its private interpetative context outside of church Tradition.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 09:14:15 PM by WPM »

Online Iconodule

  • Uranopolitan
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,029
  • "My god is greater."
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2012, 10:36:33 PM »
The Protestants have no problem with councils. Most of them will say they accept ecumenical councils 1-4, some of them even more. The Protestants of course have had their own councils- Westminster, Dordrecht, etc. They will say this is just part of church governance and the teaching ministry of the church, and that conciliar pronouncements are only authoritative insofar as their principles can be proven from scripture.

The fact that there is no concept of sola scriptura taught in the Bible is enough to disprove sola scriptura.

Offline pmpn8rGPT

  • Grammar Nazi in three languages.
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,038
  • Proof that Russia won the Space Race.
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2012, 10:41:34 PM »
The Protestants have no problem with councils.
well maybe not all protestants but a lot of protestants like Jehovah's witnesses don't agree with councils.  Which is why there are 23,000+ protestant sects. 
"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.

Offline HabteSelassie

  • Ises and I-ity
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,332
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2012, 10:58:08 PM »
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

so I was just finished reading The Holy Scriptures and I noticed something which caught my attention. 
Acts 15 describes the Council of Jerusalem.  Obviously I knew about this council and I knew it was described in Acts but I thought to myself "if the apostles held council and, presumably, taught others to have council (which we know they did historically) than does the Bible disprove sola scriptura?  It appears protestants should pay more attention.

anyways, I just thought this was interesting, so what does OC.net think

Acts 15 is generally my trump card to both legalists about the Law and Sola Scripturalists alike :)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2012, 11:40:17 PM »
The title of the thread is ingenious.

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2012, 12:08:41 AM »
so I was just finished reading The Holy Scriptures and I noticed something which caught my attention. 
Acts 15 describes the Council of Jerusalem.  Obviously I knew about this council and I knew it was described in Acts but I thought to myself "if the apostles held council and, presumably, taught others to have council (which we know they did historically) than does the Bible disprove sola scriptura?  It appears protestants should pay more attention.

anyways, I just thought this was interesting, so what does OC.net think

I recall St. Paul had problems with Christians doing the Sola Scriptural thing and he chastised them for doing so. 

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2012, 01:15:40 AM »
The Protestants have no problem with councils.
well maybe not all protestants but a lot of protestants like Jehovah's witnesses don't agree with councils. 

You are mistaken, Jehovah's witnesses are not Christians. They are a non-Christian cult.

Quote
Which is why there are 23,000+ protestant sects. 
As for the Protestants disagreeing among themselves, even the Early Church Fathers disagreed with each other on many doctrines also.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,375
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2012, 01:55:45 AM »
The Protestants have no problem with councils.
well maybe not all protestants but a lot of protestants like Jehovah's witnesses don't agree with councils. 

You are mistaken, Jehovah's witnesses are not Christians. They are a non-Christian cult.
By what authority do you call them a non-Christian cult?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2012, 02:36:28 AM »
The Protestants have no problem with councils.
well maybe not all protestants but a lot of protestants like Jehovah's witnesses don't agree with councils.  

You are mistaken, Jehovah's witnesses are not Christians. They are a non-Christian cult.
By what authority do you call them a non-Christian cult?

By the authority of the Church, the Body of Christ.

Jehovah's Witnesses are actually following the heresy known as Arianism which was declared as a heresy at the Ecumenical First Council of Nicaea of 325.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

For further study on the Jehovah's Witnesses's false teachings, here is one great resource :

http://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses


Even you can Google the JW's up. There are plenty of Christian sites that provide even more resources on the false teachings of the JW's. That already sets them apart from Biblical Christianity.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 02:46:17 AM by kx9 »

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2012, 03:02:25 AM »
This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

http://carm.org/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 03:14:36 AM by kx9 »

Offline Byzantine2008

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 280
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2012, 03:20:28 AM »
This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

http://carm.org/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group. :-\

What is your defence of sola scripture?
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 03:21:13 AM by Byzantine2008 »
Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2012, 03:26:49 AM »
This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

http://carm.org/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote
Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group. :-\

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

Quote
What is your defence of sola scripture?

The link is my defense. It says much more than I can say.

May I have your response to that link?
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 03:37:08 AM by kx9 »

Offline Byzantine2008

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 280
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2012, 03:40:08 AM »
This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

http://carm.org/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote
Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group. :-\

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the church or hall you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?
Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!

Offline Byzantine2008

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 280
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2012, 03:41:55 AM »
This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

http://carm.org/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote
Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group. :-\

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the churchyou attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Sorry I will try again...

What is the church you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?
Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!

Offline Justin Kissel

  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,805
  • my finger points
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2012, 03:44:51 AM »
This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

http://carm.org/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote
Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group. :-\

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the churchyou attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Sorry I will try again...

What is the church you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

I think you need an extra [ /quote] (with space removed) in there before your new text...
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 03:45:22 AM by Asteriktos »

Offline Byzantine2008

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 280
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2012, 03:46:09 AM »
Oh and by the way here is a link explaining sola scrpiture from an Orthodox Christian position.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx

I am still waiting to know what church you attend on Sundays or Saturdays or any day?

Thanks Asteriktos  ;D
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 03:46:52 AM by Byzantine2008 »
Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2012, 03:50:45 AM »
This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

http://carm.org/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote
Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group. :-\

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the churchyou attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Sorry I will try again...

What is the church you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

I'm actually an Ex-Catholic, but I still attend the Catholic Church because I realized that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is comprised of all who have placed their faith in Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross for salvation.

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2012, 03:56:27 AM »
Sounds Protestant to me, but I don't think you know it yet.
You have three main groups as I see it:

Orthodox
Catholic
Protestant/Reformed (nondenominational falls into this)

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2012, 03:57:46 AM »
The Protestants have no problem with councils.
well maybe not all protestants but a lot of protestants like Jehovah's witnesses don't agree with councils. 

You are mistaken, Jehovah's witnesses are not Christians. They are a non-Christian cult.

Quote
Which is why there are 23,000+ protestant sects. 
As for the Protestants disagreeing among themselves, even the Early Church Fathers disagreed with each other on many doctrines also.

But they didn't create 23,000 different groups.  They maintained one.

Offline Byzantine2008

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 280
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2012, 03:59:18 AM »
This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

http://carm.org/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote
Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group. :-\

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the churchyou attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Sorry I will try again...

What is the church you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

I'm actually an Ex-Catholic, but I still attend the Catholic Church because I realized that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is comprised of all who have placed their faith in Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross for salvation.

Sorry my friend but I have to get this straight...

You are an ex-catholic that believes in sola scripture but still attends the catholic church on Sundays because You have realised that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. ???

Lord have mercy.
Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2012, 04:01:20 AM »
But they didn't create 23,000 different groups.  They maintained one.

Let me ask you one thing, does the Eastern Orthodox Church [OFFICIALLY] acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2012, 04:03:33 AM »
But they didn't create 23,000 different groups.  They maintained one.

Let me ask you one thing, does the Eastern Orthodox Church [OFFICIALLY] acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?
That all depends on the person, but who can officially say who will attain salvation?

Offline Byzantine2008

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 280
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2012, 04:04:54 AM »
But they didn't create 23,000 different groups.  They maintained one.

Let me ask you one thing, does the Eastern Orthodox Church [OFFICIALLY] acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?

To clarify being 'saved'

1) We are saved by the power of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection when we received the Christian Mystery (we were “born again”) at Baptism,

2) We are being saved by the working of the Holy Spirit through prayer, the Holy Gifts (the Eucharist) and all the Mysteries of Divine healing, and

3) By the mercy of God we shall be saved for Eternal Life at the Partial Judgment at the moment of our death, being made worthy by the Life-Giving Word and Holy Tradition.

The Holy Spirit, through the Orthodox Church, teaches that attaining everlasting life (being “saved”) is a lifelong process and that during our earthly life there is no guarantee that we are saved.
Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2012, 04:08:37 AM »
Sorry my friend but I have to get this straight...

You are an ex-catholic that believes in sola scripture but still attends the catholic church on Sundays because You have realised that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. ???

Lord have mercy.


There are many churches and also many non-christian cults who claim themselves to be the 'True Church" outside which there is no salvation.

For example, The RCC and the EOC make this claim.

Additionally the non-Christian Cults of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses also make this claim.

Instead of listening to all these claims around us, we should look to the Bible which defines the Body of Christ - That is the Body of Believers. Additionally the Bible does not identify "which denomination" is the Body of Christ.

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2012, 04:12:00 AM »
But they didn't create 23,000 different groups.  They maintained one.

Let me ask you one thing, does the Eastern Orthodox Church [OFFICIALLY] acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?
That all depends on the person, but who can officially say who will attain salvation?

Other EO posters said (on other threads) that the Holy Spirit guides the Eastern Orthodox Church, enabling them to identify who are Saints...etc, therefore the EOC should tell [OFFICIALLY] whether they acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?

I did not ask a person's opinion. I asked the official view of the EOC as revealed by the Holy Spirit.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 04:13:06 AM by kx9 »

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2012, 04:16:05 AM »
Sounds Protestant to me, but I don't think you know it yet.
You have three main groups as I see it:

Orthodox
Catholic
Protestant/Reformed (nondenominational falls into this)

I would also add Baptists and Messianic Judaism to that list of believers.

Offline Byzantine2008

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 280
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #27 on: September 26, 2012, 04:17:28 AM »
Sorry my friend but I have to get this straight...

You are an ex-catholic that believes in sola scripture but still attends the catholic church on Sundays because You have realised that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. ???

Lord have mercy.


There are many churches and also many non-christian cults who claim themselves to be the 'True Church" outside which there is no salvation.

For example, The RCC and the EOC make this claim.

Additionally the non-Christian Cults of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses also make this claim.

Instead of listening to all these claims around us, we should look to the Bible which defines the Body of Christ - That is the Body of Believers. Additionally the Bible does not identify "which denomination" is the Body of Christ.

Lord have mercy
Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!

Offline Byzantine2008

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 280
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #28 on: September 26, 2012, 04:20:41 AM »
This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

http://carm.org/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote
Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group. :-\

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the churchyou attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Sorry I will try again...

What is the church you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

I'm actually an Ex-Catholic, but I still attend the Catholic Church because I realized that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is comprised of all who have placed their faith in Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross for salvation.

Why do you attend a church that does not believe in sola scriptura?
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 04:21:06 AM by Byzantine2008 »
Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #29 on: September 26, 2012, 04:22:00 AM »
But they didn't create 23,000 different groups.  They maintained one.

Let me ask you one thing, does the Eastern Orthodox Church [OFFICIALLY] acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?
That all depends on the person, but who can officially say who will attain salvation?

Other EO posters said (on other threads) that the Holy Spirit guides the Eastern Orthodox Church, enabling them to identify who are Saints...etc, therefore the EOC should tell [OFFICIALLY] whether they acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?

I did not ask a person's opinion. I asked the official view of the EOC as revealed by the Holy Spirit.
Then you should ask a Church official.  I suggest your local priest.

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #30 on: September 26, 2012, 04:24:07 AM »
Sounds Protestant to me, but I don't think you know it yet.
You have three main groups as I see it:

Orthodox
Catholic
Protestant/Reformed (nondenominational falls into this)

I would also add Baptists and Messianic Judaism to that list of believers.
Baptists - No, they fall into Protestant/reformed
Messianic Jews - I don't know enough to say.

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #31 on: September 26, 2012, 04:56:56 AM »
Sorry my friend but I have to get this straight...

You are an ex-catholic that believes in sola scripture but still attends the catholic church on Sundays because You have realised that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. ???

Lord have mercy.


There are many churches and also many non-christian cults who claim themselves to be the 'True Church" outside which there is no salvation.

For example, The RCC and the EOC make this claim.

Additionally the non-Christian Cults of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses also make this claim.

Instead of listening to all these claims around us, we should look to the Bible which defines the Body of Christ - That is the Body of Believers. Additionally the Bible does not identify "which denomination" is the Body of Christ.

We don't make the claim that you attribute to us here. We know where the True Church but is we don't claim that it's impossible to be saved outside of Her. We simply entrust all those outside the Church to the God Who wishes all men to be saved. You seem to have misunderstood the Orthodox position on this as on many other things in your threads here. This often repeated quote from St. Theophan the Recluse seems to me to illustrate the Orthodox view perfectly:

"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

James
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

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #32 on: September 26, 2012, 12:27:39 PM »
Sorry my friend but I have to get this straight...

You are an ex-catholic that believes in sola scripture but still attends the catholic church on Sundays because You have realised that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. ???

Lord have mercy.


There are many churches and also many non-christian cults who claim themselves to be the 'True Church" outside which there is no salvation.

For example, The RCC and the EOC make this claim.

Additionally the non-Christian Cults of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses also make this claim.

Instead of listening to all these claims around us, we should look to the Bible which defines the Body of Christ - That is the Body of Believers. Additionally the Bible does not identify "which denomination" is the Body of Christ.

Lord have mercy

May I inquire what is wrong with my viewpoint.

I have come upon unbelievers (Catholics with dead faith) who attend the Catholic Church... simply...

Lord, have mercy on them.

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #33 on: September 26, 2012, 12:30:29 PM »
This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

http://carm.org/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote
Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group. :-\

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the churchyou attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Sorry I will try again...

What is the church you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

I'm actually an Ex-Catholic, but I still attend the Catholic Church because I realized that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is comprised of all who have placed their faith in Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross for salvation.

Why do you attend a church that does not believe in sola scriptura?

Church hopping is something I don't feel comfortable with.

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #34 on: September 26, 2012, 12:33:36 PM »
But they didn't create 23,000 different groups.  They maintained one.

Let me ask you one thing, does the Eastern Orthodox Church [OFFICIALLY] acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?
That all depends on the person, but who can officially say who will attain salvation?

Other EO posters said (on other threads) that the Holy Spirit guides the Eastern Orthodox Church, enabling them to identify who are Saints...etc, therefore the EOC should tell [OFFICIALLY] whether they acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?

I did not ask a person's opinion. I asked the official view of the EOC as revealed by the Holy Spirit.
Then you should ask a Church official.  I suggest your local priest.

Wouldn't it be better if an Orthodox presbyter/priest posts an answer here. I think some presbyters are there on this forum.

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #35 on: September 26, 2012, 12:41:36 PM »
Sounds Protestant to me, but I don't think you know it yet.
You have three main groups as I see it:

Orthodox
Catholic
Protestant/Reformed (nondenominational falls into this)

I would also add Baptists and Messianic Judaism to that list of believers.
Baptists - No, they fall into Protestant/reformed
Messianic Jews - I don't know enough to say.

Messianic Jews are those Jews who have accepted Jesus as the Messiah. It is a blend of Christianity and Judaism together. They affirm the Trinity and that Jesus is God the Son and that salvation is achieved by accepting Jesus as Savior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Jews

Online Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,223
  • Level 13 Chalcedonian Paladin
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2012, 12:47:52 PM »
Sounds Protestant to me, but I don't think you know it yet.
You have three main groups as I see it:

Orthodox
Catholic
Protestant/Reformed (nondenominational falls into this)

I would also add Baptists and Messianic Judaism to that list of believers.
Baptists - No, they fall into Protestant/reformed
Messianic Jews - I don't know enough to say.

Messianic Jews are those Jews who have accepted Jesus as the Messiah. It is a blend of Christianity and Judaism together. They affirm the Trinity and that Jesus is God the Son and that salvation is achieved by accepting Jesus as Savior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Jews


Messianic Jew is codeword for Judaizers?
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

Ἀπ' ὃσα ἒκαμα κι ἀπ’ ὃσα εἶπα
νὰ μὴ ζητήσουνε νὰ βροῦν ποιός ἢμουν
-C.P Cavafy

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #37 on: September 26, 2012, 12:48:41 PM »
the EOC should tell [OFFICIALLY] whether they acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?

Or we could just let God make that decision at the final judgement.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #38 on: September 26, 2012, 12:49:20 PM »
Messianic Jew is codeword for Judaizers?

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #39 on: September 26, 2012, 01:10:33 PM »
the EOC should tell [OFFICIALLY] whether they acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?

Or we could just let God make that decision at the final judgement.

That will be too late. We need that important information now.

It's like saying. "We can accept the Gospel after we die, so it's not necessary now".

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #40 on: September 26, 2012, 01:12:36 PM »
Messianic Jew is codeword for Judaizers?

Judaizing Protestants

They do not accept Protestant beliefs. Therefore I don't think they can be put in the category of Protestantism.

Offline mike

  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,594
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #41 on: September 26, 2012, 01:14:52 PM »
All existing Christian communities that cannot be categorized as Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Catholics or Nestorians are Protestants for me.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

not everything I typed before [insert current date] may reflect my current views on the subject

Offline sheenj

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,429
  • St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Church
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #42 on: September 26, 2012, 01:33:44 PM »
Sounds Protestant to me, but I don't think you know it yet.
You have three main groups as I see it:

Orthodox
Catholic
Protestant/Reformed (nondenominational falls into this)

I would also add Baptists and Messianic Judaism to that list of believers.
Baptists - No, they fall into Protestant/reformed
Messianic Jews - I don't know enough to say.

Messianic Jews are those Jews who have accepted Jesus as the Messiah. It is a blend of Christianity and Judaism together. They affirm the Trinity and that Jesus is God the Son and that salvation is achieved by accepting Jesus as Savior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Jews

Er, not quite. Quite a few of them are strong Arians in that they deny the Divinity of Our Lord.

Offline HabteSelassie

  • Ises and I-ity
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,332
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #43 on: September 26, 2012, 01:49:15 PM »
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

http://carm.org/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.



Quote
The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation.

How can Jesus ever be separated from His own inherent Divine Power?  Jesus is ALWAYS God and ALWAYS Man, therefore in every instance in which He does ANYTHING, says ANYTHING, thinks or feels ANYTHING, it is as much a Divine act as it is Human.  

Quote
Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead.


This is a logical paradox, how can the lowercase church define things which are believed and taught outside of the Scriptures, and then these authors assert that such is not extra-Biblical Tradition?  See, these contradictions are the holes in Protestant theology, all the more why we prefer to leave such depth of thinking to the experts, the Fathers of the capital case Church.

Quote
In either case, the Scriptures hold the place of final authority and by that position, are shown to be superior to Sacred Tradition.  This means that Sacred Tradition is not equal in authority to the Word of God.

No, the Tradition and Scriptures mutually fulfill each other, we do not use one to validate the other, as if they were separated or distinct, rather the Tradition and the Scriptures are one and the same, and we hold them with equal veneration.

Quote
Merely to claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so.

Actually it does, because originally in history the Bible simply WAS another aspect of Tradition, and it was only the Protestants who decided on their own authority that such was wrong, but it is an addition to Christian thinking 1600 years removed from the Apostles, a fraudulent and deceptive addition which pushes folks towards heresy, towards rejecting the fullness of God's Word, which is mutually contained in both the Scriptures and the Traditions as a single font of Grace.

Quote
If the Bible is not used to verify and test Sacred Tradition, then Sacred Tradition is functionally independent of the Word of God.   If the Roman Catholic says that the inspired guide is the Roman Catholic Church, then it is committing the fallacy of circular reasoning. In other words, it is saying that the Roman Catholic Church is inspired because the Roman Catholic Church is inspired.

Sorry but no, because again the Tradition IS Scripture and the Scripture IS Tradition, they are one and the same thing, how could they then be functionally independent? The circular argument is not by the Church, but by Protestants who claim with no authority, legitimacy, or accuracy, wrongfully suggest that the Tradition is different from the Scriptures.  The fallacy is not ours, it is theirs.  Further, the Bible's historical origin is within the One Catholic Church, this is simply irrefutable.  So if the Catholic Church is NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit, then neither is the Bible, and if the Bible IS inspired by the Holy Spirit, then by all logic so too is the Church where the Bible inherently comes from.

Quote
Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does.

No, it doesn't ;)

Quote
So?  Making such claims doesn't mean they are true.

Agreed, but saying it consistently across 2000 years of history DOES make it true, where as just starting up random Protestant churches under the will of some pastor or preacher, where is their authority? Where is their legitimacy? How does some smart Bible reading man suddenly say that his version of House of God or Missionary Baptist suddenly make THAT church somehow true? See it goes both ways, and there are more fallacies supporting the Protestant house of cards than our own ;)

Quote
f so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture. Is it from the Bible?
The New Testament is an anthology of the writings, commentaries, and epistles of the Apostles such as Luke, John, James, Paul, and Peter.  The Tradition, including the Patristics, is merely a continuation and perpetuation of this process.  The writings of the Fathers are no different than the writings of the Apostles, they are their dynamic successors.

Quote
One of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition.  This is false.

Haha, this is sooooo cute! The Bible simply DIDN'T exist until the 3rd and 4th centuries.  The Canon as we read it today was ever evolving during the Early Church.  Simply stated, the BIBLE orginated SOLELY within the Church, and indeed is ENTIRELY DERIVED FROM THE PROCESS OF THE SACRED TRADITION.  The Canon IS Tradition silly Protestant "thinkers" (I say this facetiously because I am not quite sure the author of this article ever actually was thinking in the first place!)

Quote
The link is my defense. It says much more than I can say.

May I have your response to that link?

kx9, sincerely no disrespect intended, maybe you should get your information from more intelligent sources before you walk away from the Holy Church based on some folks high-minded by absurdly inaccurate opinions which quite literally have both no basis in or understanding of actual history?

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 01:50:22 PM by HabteSelassie »
"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Offline dzheremi

  • No longer posting here.
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,383
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #44 on: September 26, 2012, 02:06:49 PM »
The Bible is a PART of Tradition itself. That it was canonized at a certain time (this differs depending on what particular church you are talking about; the Ethiopians have a much broader canon than most, reflecting the unique circumstances in which they received the Bible, whereas the RCs, by contrast, canonized their Bible definitively only in the 15th century or thereabouts, if my memory is correct at the Council of Trent, largely in response to Protestant tampering with the books), that certain books were not included, etc. All of this was decided in council. The Bible did not fall out of the sky one day, complete with table of contents and magical self-interpreting powers. If it were not for the Tradition that you so decry, you would have nothing on which to base your "Bible-believing" views, as the Bible as we know it would not exist. In fact, you and all Protestants should at least venerate St. Athanasius the Apostolic, who gave the first definitive shape to the New Testament canon such as you would recognize it today, in an festal letter in 367 AD. He said that these books were "canonized" (kanonizomena), and whether you are aware of it or not, you are following in the tradition of this great saint of the Church by using those same 27 books that he declared canonical all those centuries ago. You may read the letter in question today, even. Isn't it great that we have all this tradition that has been preserved so that you know where your Bible came from?  ;)

Offline Doubting Thomas

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 883
  • Anglican (but not Episcopagan)
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #45 on: September 26, 2012, 03:23:42 PM »
All existing Christian communities that cannot be categorized as Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Catholics or Nestorians are Protestants for me.
Does this include Anglican Catholics?  ;D
"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33

Online Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,223
  • Level 13 Chalcedonian Paladin
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #46 on: September 26, 2012, 03:28:00 PM »
All existing Christian communities that cannot be categorized as Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Catholics or Nestorians are Protestants for me.
Does this include Anglican Catholics?  ;D

*kuch* 39 articles *kuch*
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

Ἀπ' ὃσα ἒκαμα κι ἀπ’ ὃσα εἶπα
νὰ μὴ ζητήσουνε νὰ βροῦν ποιός ἢμουν
-C.P Cavafy

Offline Doubting Thomas

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 883
  • Anglican (but not Episcopagan)
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #47 on: September 26, 2012, 03:38:06 PM »
All existing Christian communities that cannot be categorized as Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Catholics or Nestorians are Protestants for me.
Does this include Anglican Catholics?  ;D

*kuch* 39 articles *kuch*

And?
"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33

Online Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,223
  • Level 13 Chalcedonian Paladin
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #48 on: September 26, 2012, 03:39:04 PM »
All existing Christian communities that cannot be categorized as Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Catholics or Nestorians are Protestants for me.
Does this include Anglican Catholics?  ;D

*kuch* 39 articles *kuch*

And?

Ever read it?
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

Ἀπ' ὃσα ἒκαμα κι ἀπ’ ὃσα εἶπα
νὰ μὴ ζητήσουνε νὰ βροῦν ποιός ἢμουν
-C.P Cavafy

Offline Doubting Thomas

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 883
  • Anglican (but not Episcopagan)
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #49 on: September 26, 2012, 04:20:43 PM »
All existing Christian communities that cannot be categorized as Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Catholics or Nestorians are Protestants for me.
Does this include Anglican Catholics?  ;D

*kuch* 39 articles *kuch*

And?

Ever read it?

Yep.
"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33

Online Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,223
  • Level 13 Chalcedonian Paladin
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #50 on: September 26, 2012, 04:34:13 PM »
All existing Christian communities that cannot be categorized as Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Catholics or Nestorians are Protestants for me.
Does this include Anglican Catholics?  ;D

*kuch* 39 articles *kuch*

And?

Ever read it?

Yep.

They sound horribly protestant to me.
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

Ἀπ' ὃσα ἒκαμα κι ἀπ’ ὃσα εἶπα
νὰ μὴ ζητήσουνε νὰ βροῦν ποιός ἢμουν
-C.P Cavafy

Offline mike

  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,594
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #51 on: September 26, 2012, 04:36:28 PM »
All existing Christian communities that cannot be categorized as Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Catholics or Nestorians are Protestants for me.
Does this include Anglican Catholics?  ;D

Yes, noting special about you, guys.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

not everything I typed before [insert current date] may reflect my current views on the subject

Offline Doubting Thomas

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 883
  • Anglican (but not Episcopagan)
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #52 on: September 26, 2012, 04:59:11 PM »
All existing Christian communities that cannot be categorized as Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Catholics or Nestorians are Protestants for me.
Does this include Anglican Catholics?  ;D

*kuch* 39 articles *kuch*

And?

Ever read it?

Yep.

They sound horribly protestant to me.

Maybe.  But I guess it's sorta like interpreting Scripture--depending on who's reading it, it can sound obviously Catholic (or Orthodox) or Protestant (in a variety of flavors).  Within the wider context of the BCP and the ORDINAL, and the desire expressed in classical Anglican thought not to teach anything out of Scripture that's inconsistent with what the ancient catholic Doctors got out of the same, the Articles are certainly patent of a more catholic interpretation than some of it's detractors (or adherents for that matter) care to admit. 

As for Anglican Catholics in the Continuum, the Articles are indeed interepreted in light of the patristic consensus as is broadly stated in the Affirmation of St Louis (including 7 Councils and 7 sacraments)
"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,434
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #53 on: September 26, 2012, 05:04:57 PM »
This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

http://carm.org/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.


Quote
Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group. :-\

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the churchyou attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Sorry I will try again...

What is the church you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

I'm actually an Ex-Catholic, but I still attend the Catholic Church because I realized that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is comprised of all who have placed their faith in Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross for salvation.
 This very sentence rings out as a Protestant and/or western atonement belief. Orthodoxy typically doesn't have the atonement as its central tenant in theology. Orthodoxy doesn't understand the cross as the satisfaction of a verdict of condemnation. There is no doctrine of Original Sin. True theology is a gift from god and comes later on. If you wish to put your faith into the Orthodox way. You must choose to live it first. That in itself is a leap of faith. You have to explore little variation that makes huge impacts of difference. First, we Orthodox vary because we call original sin Ancestral. If you really want to take some time out and read into what makes Orthodoxy different. You will have to systematically start from the beginning. With Adam an Eves fall all the way up to the Resurrection of Christ. The work is in your hands with the HS as your guide. You have to completely forget about what you were taught and start from scratch. You are comparing from a different prospective.
      I'll give you a quick example of the way it is. Lets say for instance you and a friend become lost in the woods. Than you both decide to go in different directions because you think the main road is north and he thinks it's south. BTW: did I mention that one of you is correct. I hope. While traveling through the woods from either perspective they both seem correct. This is important. Why? It's because while in travel both trails look identical. This is a comparative scenario of the state of our churches. The main road is the kingdom and the trails are the Churches. Since the Churches are still in route. There is no decisive winner. Yet.
   What we have to do is study and look at it from all angles to see for ourselves which trail is for us. The full kingdom is not upon us yet. The conclusive victor isn't realized yet. But the foundation is here.
Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

Offline pmpn8rGPT

  • Grammar Nazi in three languages.
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,038
  • Proof that Russia won the Space Race.
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #54 on: September 26, 2012, 05:51:10 PM »
The title of the thread is ingenious.
thanks, I deeply appreciate that
"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.

Offline pmpn8rGPT

  • Grammar Nazi in three languages.
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,038
  • Proof that Russia won the Space Race.
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #55 on: September 26, 2012, 06:03:45 PM »
The Bible is a PART of Tradition itself. That it was canonized at a certain time (this differs depending on what particular church you are talking about; the Ethiopians have a much broader canon than most, reflecting the unique circumstances in which they received the Bible, whereas the RCs, by contrast, canonized their Bible definitively only in the 15th century or thereabouts, if my memory is correct at the Council of Trent, largely in response to Protestant tampering with the books), that certain books were not included, etc. All of this was decided in council. The Bible did not fall out of the sky one day, complete with table of contents and magical self-interpreting powers. If it were not for the Tradition that you so decry, you would have nothing on which to base your "Bible-believing" views, as the Bible as we know it would not exist. In fact, you and all Protestants should at least venerate St. Athanasius the Apostolic, who gave the first definitive shape to the New Testament canon such as you would recognize it today, in an festal letter in 367 AD. He said that these books were "canonized" (kanonizomena), and whether you are aware of it or not, you are following in the tradition of this great saint of the Church by using those same 27 books that he declared canonical all those centuries ago. You may read the letter in question today, even. Isn't it great that we have all this tradition that has been preserved so that you know where your Bible came from?  ;)
Amen
"Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here."
-Nostradamus's last words.

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #56 on: September 26, 2012, 09:21:11 PM »
That will be too late. We need that important information now.

It's like saying. "We can accept the Gospel after we die, so it's not necessary now".

No it's about proclaiming the Gospel as the truth about God and how we relate to him, not trying to figure out who's going to hell so you can tell them all about how they're going to hell.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline DavidH

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 531
    • Signature Landscape Designs
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #57 on: September 26, 2012, 09:33:50 PM »
Is sola Scriptura biblical?

No, and I would go further-
Extra ecclesiam nulla scriptura.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,375
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #58 on: September 27, 2012, 01:19:57 AM »
The Protestants have no problem with councils.
well maybe not all protestants but a lot of protestants like Jehovah's witnesses don't agree with councils.  

You are mistaken, Jehovah's witnesses are not Christians. They are a non-Christian cult.
By what authority do you call them a non-Christian cult?

By the authority of the Church, the Body of Christ.
But if you're not a member of the Church, how can you cite the authority of the Church? Isn't that inconsistent?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #59 on: September 27, 2012, 04:10:18 AM »
The Protestants have no problem with councils.
well maybe not all protestants but a lot of protestants like Jehovah's witnesses don't agree with councils.  

You are mistaken, Jehovah's witnesses are not Christians. They are a non-Christian cult.
By what authority do you call them a non-Christian cult?

By the authority of the Church, the Body of Christ.
But if you're not a member of the Church, how can you cite the authority of the Church? Isn't that inconsistent?

But he thinks he is a member of the Church - it's just that it's an invisible one made up of 'all believers', whatever that means. Of course if you have such a belief in what the Church is, invoking its authority does seem pretty pointless. After all, depending on your point of view you could use that justify anything from throwing out James to adding in the Gospel of Judas. Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that there is an actual visible Church whose Tradition is correct - but that invalidates the idea of an invisible church of all believers. It's that kind of realisation that drove me out of Protestantism myself.

James
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

Offline Keble

  • All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,492
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #60 on: September 27, 2012, 08:24:26 AM »
Is sola Scriptura biblical?

No, and I would go further-
Extra ecclesiam nulla scriptura.

Perhaps this is true in a mystical sense, but as far as argument is concerned, it's only true in a trivial and useless sense: that only those who consider themselves within the church take scripture as an authority. Otherwise it simply begs the question.

Of course it is obvious upon a moment's thought that Protestants DO hold that scripture teaches sola scriptura. You don't have to look for the arguments to know this, though they are readily found if actually sought. It's pretty obvious, though, that as a fundamental doctrine, there would be Protestants attempting to justify it through scripture. Assuming that your opponents have no answer to the most obvious criticism is the worst sort of Colluphidism; there is much more integrity to be found in assuming that they have a response to that criticism, and that you have an obligation to seek out the highest quality response and answer it.

Online primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,230
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #61 on: September 27, 2012, 09:31:33 AM »
An argument I have used with the multitude of protestants in my area. Is sola scriptura true before, or after Luther removed books from the bible?

PP
"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

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #62 on: September 27, 2012, 09:43:00 AM »
All existing Christian communities that cannot be categorized as Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Catholics or Nestorians are Protestants for me.

This forum has "other Christian" section,

Michal, which denomination would you place in the "other Christian" Category?
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 09:58:38 AM by kx9 »

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #63 on: September 27, 2012, 09:47:31 AM »
This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

http://carm.org/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.


Quote
Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group. :-\

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the churchyou attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Sorry I will try again...

What is the church you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

I'm actually an Ex-Catholic, but I still attend the Catholic Church because I realized that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is comprised of all who have placed their faith in Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross for salvation.
 This very sentence rings out as a Protestant and/or western atonement belief. Orthodoxy typically doesn't have the atonement as its central tenant in theology. Orthodoxy doesn't understand the cross as the satisfaction of a verdict of condemnation. There is no doctrine of Original Sin. True theology is a gift from god and comes later on. If you wish to put your faith into the Orthodox way. You must choose to live it first. That in itself is a leap of faith. You have to explore little variation that makes huge impacts of difference. First, we Orthodox vary because we call original sin Ancestral. If you really want to take some time out and read into what makes Orthodoxy different. You will have to systematically start from the beginning. With Adam an Eves fall all the way up to the Resurrection of Christ. The work is in your hands with the HS as your guide. You have to completely forget about what you were taught and start from scratch. You are comparing from a different prospective.
      I'll give you a quick example of the way it is. Lets say for instance you and a friend become lost in the woods. Than you both decide to go in different directions because you think the main road is north and he thinks it's south. BTW: did I mention that one of you is correct. I hope. While traveling through the woods from either perspective they both seem correct. This is important. Why? It's because while in travel both trails look identical. This is a comparative scenario of the state of our churches. The main road is the kingdom and the trails are the Churches. Since the Churches are still in route. There is no decisive winner. Yet.
   What we have to do is study and look at it from all angles to see for ourselves which trail is for us. The full kingdom is not upon us yet. The conclusive victor isn't realized yet. But the foundation is here.

Regarding the part of your quote which I have boldened : Kindly make your answer clear : Does the Orthodox Church believe that faith in Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is not sufficient for salvation? (which means there is much more we must do to get salvation?)

Online Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,223
  • Level 13 Chalcedonian Paladin
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #64 on: September 27, 2012, 09:51:13 AM »
All existing Christian communities that cannot be categorized as Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Catholics or Nestorians are Protestants for me.
Does this include Anglican Catholics?  ;D

*kuch* 39 articles *kuch*

And?

Ever read it?

Yep.

They sound horribly protestant to me.

Maybe.  But I guess it's sorta like interpreting Scripture--depending on who's reading it, it can sound obviously Catholic (or Orthodox) or Protestant (in a variety of flavors).  Within the wider context of the BCP and the ORDINAL, and the desire expressed in classical Anglican thought not to teach anything out of Scripture that's inconsistent with what the ancient catholic Doctors got out of the same, the Articles are certainly patent of a more catholic interpretation than some of it's detractors (or adherents for that matter) care to admit. 

As for Anglican Catholics in the Continuum, the Articles are indeed interepreted in light of the patristic consensus as is broadly stated in the Affirmation of St Louis (including 7 Councils and 7 sacraments)

I do know that it can be interpreted in a wide sense (I have read Tract 90) but it's rather unconvincing. Didn't the king who promulgated those articles added an edict to it in which he outlawed any interpretation but the most obvious and literal one?
This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

http://carm.org/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.


Quote
Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group. :-\

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the churchyou attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Sorry I will try again...

What is the church you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

I'm actually an Ex-Catholic, but I still attend the Catholic Church because I realized that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is comprised of all who have placed their faith in Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross for salvation.
 This very sentence rings out as a Protestant and/or western atonement belief. Orthodoxy typically doesn't have the atonement as its central tenant in theology. Orthodoxy doesn't understand the cross as the satisfaction of a verdict of condemnation. There is no doctrine of Original Sin. True theology is a gift from god and comes later on. If you wish to put your faith into the Orthodox way. You must choose to live it first. That in itself is a leap of faith. You have to explore little variation that makes huge impacts of difference. First, we Orthodox vary because we call original sin Ancestral. If you really want to take some time out and read into what makes Orthodoxy different. You will have to systematically start from the beginning. With Adam an Eves fall all the way up to the Resurrection of Christ. The work is in your hands with the HS as your guide. You have to completely forget about what you were taught and start from scratch. You are comparing from a different prospective.
      I'll give you a quick example of the way it is. Lets say for instance you and a friend become lost in the woods. Than you both decide to go in different directions because you think the main road is north and he thinks it's south. BTW: did I mention that one of you is correct. I hope. While traveling through the woods from either perspective they both seem correct. This is important. Why? It's because while in travel both trails look identical. This is a comparative scenario of the state of our churches. The main road is the kingdom and the trails are the Churches. Since the Churches are still in route. There is no decisive winner. Yet.
   What we have to do is study and look at it from all angles to see for ourselves which trail is for us. The full kingdom is not upon us yet. The conclusive victor isn't realized yet. But the foundation is here.

Regarding the part of your quote which I have boldened : Kindly make your answer clear : Does the Orthodox Church believe that faith in Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is not sufficient for salvation? (which means there is much more we must do to get salvation?)

I suggest you read St. Athanasius "On the Incarnation" before you debate the Orthodox about salvation. Just a bit of advice.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 09:57:10 AM by Cyrillic »
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

Ἀπ' ὃσα ἒκαμα κι ἀπ’ ὃσα εἶπα
νὰ μὴ ζητήσουνε νὰ βροῦν ποιός ἢμουν
-C.P Cavafy

Online primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,230
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #65 on: September 27, 2012, 09:53:24 AM »
Quote
Kindly make your answer clear : Does the Orthodox Church believe that faith in Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is not sufficient for salvation?
Faith without works is dead ;)

PP
"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

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #66 on: September 27, 2012, 10:03:58 AM »
I suggest you read St. Athanasius "On the Incarnation" before you debate the Orthodox about salvation. Just a bit of advice.

Should I read this one?

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm

Should I read any other links in the [contents] section of that web page. Please specify the numbers also?

Online Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,223
  • Level 13 Chalcedonian Paladin
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #67 on: September 27, 2012, 10:07:42 AM »
I suggest you read St. Athanasius "On the Incarnation" before you debate the Orthodox about salvation. Just a bit of advice.

Should I read this one?

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm

Should I read any other links in the [contents] section of that web page. Please specify the numbers also?

Yes, it's that one. You can skip the introduction by C.S Lewis though. For the rest, read it all. It wouldn't take too long and it is very edifying.
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

Ἀπ' ὃσα ἒκαμα κι ἀπ’ ὃσα εἶπα
νὰ μὴ ζητήσουνε νὰ βροῦν ποιός ἢμουν
-C.P Cavafy

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #68 on: September 27, 2012, 10:08:17 AM »
Quote
Kindly make your answer clear : Does the Orthodox Church believe that faith in Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is not sufficient for salvation?
Faith without works is dead ;)

PP

Agreed.

But do you agree that [faith alone] (the type of faith that generates good works) is sufficient to save?

If yes, then Sola Fide is 100% biblical.

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #69 on: September 27, 2012, 10:21:35 AM »
The Protestants have no problem with councils.
well maybe not all protestants but a lot of protestants like Jehovah's witnesses don't agree with councils.  

You are mistaken, Jehovah's witnesses are not Christians. They are a non-Christian cult.
By what authority do you call them a non-Christian cult?

By the authority of the Church, the Body of Christ.
But if you're not a member of the Church, how can you cite the authority of the Church? Isn't that inconsistent?

This happens when one believes that the EOC [alone] is the true, and fullness of the Body of Christ.

In contrast to this, the Bible says the Church is the Body of believers. There are many more outside the EOC (other denominations) who have truly accepted Jesus as Savior.

You know that there are many in the EOC who do not have true faith in Christ (dead faith). They attend the EOC simply because they were born into an EOC family. I've seen the same thing with Roman Catholics.

So is one a member of the Body of Christ just because he/she is in the EOC, or because he/she has true faith in Christ?


And lastly, it is [not my verdict] that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult. The same has been analyzed and proclaimed by Christians many years ago and is being spread through the Internet as a part of preventing people from unintentionally falling into the claws of the cults.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 10:26:40 AM by kx9 »

Online Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,223
  • Level 13 Chalcedonian Paladin
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #70 on: September 27, 2012, 10:31:00 AM »
Being a member of the Orthodox Church doesn't mean that you're guaranteed salvation.
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

Ἀπ' ὃσα ἒκαμα κι ἀπ’ ὃσα εἶπα
νὰ μὴ ζητήσουνε νὰ βροῦν ποιός ἢμουν
-C.P Cavafy

Online primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,230
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #71 on: September 27, 2012, 10:36:52 AM »
Quote
[faith alone]
No, and neither does scripture.

Quote
There are many more outside the EOC (other denominations) who have truly accepted Jesus as Savior
I've no doubt that there are Christians outside the EOC. However, there is a visible Church with authority. Else why would the Apostles ordain people? Why would those that learned at their feet speak of this authority? There has to be a visible Church to protect correct belief. The idea that all of the 30,000+ denominations, which all believe radically different things are all the body of Christ is completely silly. God is not the author of confusion.

PP
"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

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #72 on: September 27, 2012, 10:41:04 AM »
But do you agree that [faith alone] (the type of faith that generates good works) is sufficient to save?

If yes, then Sola Fide is 100% biblical.

Paul said that you can have that moves mountains and if you don't have love then it's nothing.

Truth faith brings about repentence, love of God, and love of neighbor. These things are expressed in the "works" that sola fide says "aren't necessary". Jesus said to love the Lord with "all" your heart, mind, sould, and strength. Anyway, saving faith is never alone.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,576
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #73 on: September 27, 2012, 10:41:19 AM »
Quote
Kindly make your answer clear : Does the Orthodox Church believe that faith in Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is not sufficient for salvation?
Faith without works is dead ;)

PP

Agreed.

But do you agree that [faith alone] (the type of faith that generates good works) is sufficient to save?

If yes, then Sola Fide is 100% biblical.

You posit a tautology, therefore your argument is ultimately unconvincing or useless in practice. Let me ask instead how John 6:53 (see below) figures in your estimation of how and when salvation occurs?

"Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."


Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #74 on: September 27, 2012, 10:42:31 AM »
That will be too late. We need that important information now.

It's like saying. "We can accept the Gospel after we die, so it's not necessary now".

No it's about proclaiming the Gospel as the truth about God and how we relate to him, not trying to figure out who's going to hell so you can tell them all about how they're going to hell.

What I have boldened... is not the point.

Can I just get the answer to my question?

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,576
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #75 on: September 27, 2012, 10:44:52 AM »
Sorry my friend but I have to get this straight...

You are an ex-catholic that believes in sola scripture but still attends the catholic church on Sundays because You have realised that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. ???

Lord have mercy.


There are many churches and also many non-christian cults who claim themselves to be the 'True Church" outside which there is no salvation.

For example, The RCC and the EOC make this claim.

Additionally the non-Christian Cults of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses also make this claim.

Instead of listening to all these claims around us, we should look to the Bible which defines the Body of Christ - That is the Body of Believers. Additionally the Bible does not identify "which denomination" is the Body of Christ.

We don't make the claim that you attribute to us here. We know where the True Church but is we don't claim that it's impossible to be saved outside of Her. We simply entrust all those outside the Church to the God Who wishes all men to be saved. You seem to have misunderstood the Orthodox position on this as on many other things in your threads here. This often repeated quote from St. Theophan the Recluse seems to me to illustrate the Orthodox view perfectly:

"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

James
kx9--You did not directly respond to the above quotation of St. Theophan the Recluse, which leads me to ask if you are satisfied that this is indeed an Orthodox approach to the heterodox.

Offline dzheremi

  • No longer posting here.
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,383
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #76 on: September 27, 2012, 10:47:22 AM »
This happens when one believes that the EOC [alone] is the true, and fullness of the Body of Christ.

In contrast to this, the Bible says the Church is the Body of believers. There are many more outside the EOC (other denominations) who have truly accepted Jesus as Savior.

The trouble with this is that Orthodoxy is about much more than simple intellectual or emotional assent or agreement. James 2:19 reminds us that even the demons believe. That doesn't make them members of the Church.

Quote
So is one a member of the Body of Christ just because he/she is in the EOC, or because he/she has true faith in Christ?

Saying that the Orthodox Church is the Church is not the same as saying everyone who is Orthodox by virtue of their baptism has correct faith, is living by that faith, is "saved"/going to heaven, etc. Not the same at all, in fact. You are not ever going to understand Orthodoxy, I'm afraid, until you get away from the Protestant "snap decision" view of Christianity. True faith in Christ is not something that is able to be separated from what you actually literally (physically and spiritually) do with your life. If I agree with all the doctrines of Christianity and say I have true faith, yet I do not enter into communion with the Church that has kept His commandments (cf. John 14:15), then I can't really fall back on my intellectual and emotional assent. Plenty of other groups claim such great respect and love for Orthodoxy while not practicing it. Anyone can claim whatever they want, including people who are "Orthodox" but don't live any differently than anybody else, unless it happens to be Christmas or Easter. That means exactly diddly squat. Orthodoxy is about the whole life, not a superficial Church affiliation or label you've affixed to yourself.

Quote
And lastly, it is [not my verdict] that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult. The same has been analyzed and proclaimed by Christians many years ago and is being spread through the Internet as a part of preventing people from unintentionally falling into the claws of the cults.

The point is that a person who does not submit himself to the authority of the Church therefore has no authority to judge others who are similarly outside of it, as he is. Yes, I don't think you'd find too many who would argue with you that the JW organization is not reflective of any strain of apostolic Christianity, but coming out of the mouth of a similarly heterodox person, it doesn't really mean much. Why do you think Christ commanded the demons to silence, when they knew He was the Christ? The source of authority matters, and so coming out of the mouths of demons the truth of His messiahship would sound like just another lie. Well, the same can be said for heterodox decrying the heterodoxy of their fellow heterodox. We do not follow whatever page that we can find on the internet to decide what to believe about a group. The heresies embraced by the JWs and others were dealt with by the early Church very capably and thoroughly. This is also why your own viewpoints are being challenged and rejected. We've been here before, and much greater men and women than any of us have ably refuted such doctrines.

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #77 on: September 27, 2012, 10:48:59 AM »
Quote
Kindly make your answer clear : Does the Orthodox Church believe that faith in Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is not sufficient for salvation?
Faith without works is dead ;)

PP

Agreed.

But do you agree that [faith alone] (the type of faith that generates good works) is sufficient to save?

If yes, then Sola Fide is 100% biblical.

You posit a tautology, therefore your argument is ultimately unconvincing or useless in practice. Let me ask instead how John 6:53 (see below) figures in your estimation of how and when salvation occurs?

"Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."




Then what did Jesus mean when He explained to His disciples that the flesh counts for nothing?

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #78 on: September 27, 2012, 10:54:19 AM »
Sorry my friend but I have to get this straight...

You are an ex-catholic that believes in sola scripture but still attends the catholic church on Sundays because You have realised that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. ???

Lord have mercy.


There are many churches and also many non-christian cults who claim themselves to be the 'True Church" outside which there is no salvation.

For example, The RCC and the EOC make this claim.

Additionally the non-Christian Cults of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses also make this claim.

Instead of listening to all these claims around us, we should look to the Bible which defines the Body of Christ - That is the Body of Believers. Additionally the Bible does not identify "which denomination" is the Body of Christ.

We don't make the claim that you attribute to us here. We know where the True Church but is we don't claim that it's impossible to be saved outside of Her. We simply entrust all those outside the Church to the God Who wishes all men to be saved. You seem to have misunderstood the Orthodox position on this as on many other things in your threads here. This often repeated quote from St. Theophan the Recluse seems to me to illustrate the Orthodox view perfectly:

"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

James
kx9--You did not directly respond to the above quotation of St. Theophan the Recluse, which leads me to ask if you are satisfied that this is indeed an Orthodox approach to the heterodox.
Oh, yes I missed that. I thought I'll answer it later, then later didn't notice it.

Yes I agree with that statement.

But what I have boldened there... if it means losing faith in Christ, then yes, the soul is lost (whether the person leaves the EOC for another denomination or remains in it).

Online Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,223
  • Level 13 Chalcedonian Paladin
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #79 on: September 27, 2012, 10:58:09 AM »

The point is that a person who does not submit himself to the authority of the Church therefore has no authority to judge others who are similarly outside of it, as he is. Yes, I don't think you'd find too many who would argue with you that the JW organization is not reflective of any strain of apostolic Christianity, but coming out of the mouth of a similarly heterodox person, it doesn't really mean much. Why do you think Christ commanded the demons to silence, when they knew He was the Christ? The source of authority matters, and so coming out of the mouths of demons the truth of His messiahship would sound like just another lie. Well, the same can be said for heterodox decrying the heterodoxy of their fellow heterodox. We do not follow whatever page that we can find on the internet to decide what to believe about a group. The heresies embraced by the JWs and others were dealt with by the early Church very capably and thoroughly. This is also why your own viewpoints are being challenged and rejected. We've been here before, and much greater men and women than any of us have ably refuted such doctrines.

Didn't HH Pope Shenouda III write a book on how the JW are an heretical cult?

« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 11:13:13 AM by Cyrillic »
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

Ἀπ' ὃσα ἒκαμα κι ἀπ’ ὃσα εἶπα
νὰ μὴ ζητήσουνε νὰ βροῦν ποιός ἢμουν
-C.P Cavafy

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #80 on: September 27, 2012, 11:03:08 AM »
Sorry my friend but I have to get this straight...

You are an ex-catholic that believes in sola scripture but still attends the catholic church on Sundays because You have realised that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. ???

Lord have mercy.


There are many churches and also many non-christian cults who claim themselves to be the 'True Church" outside which there is no salvation.

For example, The RCC and the EOC make this claim.

Additionally the non-Christian Cults of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses also make this claim.

Instead of listening to all these claims around us, we should look to the Bible which defines the Body of Christ - That is the Body of Believers. Additionally the Bible does not identify "which denomination" is the Body of Christ.

We don't make the claim that you attribute to us here. We know where the True Church but is we don't claim that it's impossible to be saved outside of Her. We simply entrust all those outside the Church to the God Who wishes all men to be saved. You seem to have misunderstood the Orthodox position on this as on many other things in your threads here. This often repeated quote from St. Theophan the Recluse seems to me to illustrate the Orthodox view perfectly:

"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

James
kx9--You did not directly respond to the above quotation of St. Theophan the Recluse, which leads me to ask if you are satisfied that this is indeed an Orthodox approach to the heterodox.
Oh, yes I missed that. I thought I'll answer it later, then later didn't notice it.

Yes I agree with that statement.

But what I have boldened there... if it means losing faith in Christ, then yes, the soul is lost (whether the person leaves the EOC for another denomination or remains in it).

Note that he says different faith, not different Church. I'd say it's quite possible to enter a different faith whilst nominally being a member of the Orthodox Church. I've met people (if you can use met re. the internet) who have appeared to have done exactly that.

James
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

Offline dzheremi

  • No longer posting here.
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,383
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #81 on: September 27, 2012, 11:10:09 AM »

The point is that a person who does not submit himself to the authority of the Church therefore has no authority to judge others who are similarly outside of it, as he is. Yes, I don't think you'd find too many who would argue with you that the JW organization is not reflective of any strain of apostolic Christianity, but coming out of the mouth of a similarly heterodox person, it doesn't really mean much. Why do you think Christ commanded the demons to silence, when they knew He was the Christ? The source of authority matters, and so coming out of the mouths of demons the truth of His messiahship would sound like just another lie. Well, the same can be said for heterodox decrying the heterodoxy of their fellow heterodox. We do not follow whatever page that we can find on the internet to decide what to believe about a group. The heresies embraced by the JWs and others were dealt with by the early Church very capably and thoroughly. This is also why your own viewpoints are being challenged and rejected. We've been here before, and much greater men and women than any of us have ably refuted such doctrines.

Didn't HH Pope Shenouda III write a book on how the JW are an heretical cult?

I've never read it (most of HH's writings are very poorly translated into English, sadly, so I only have a few of his books), but it seems yes, he did.

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #82 on: September 27, 2012, 11:10:36 AM »
Quote
[faith alone]

Quote
No, and neither does scripture.

There are many verses that say we are [justified by faith]. Since faith and works are contrasted in many verses below, we have no option, but to add [alone] to faith to separate it from works.


    Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
    Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
    Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
    Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith."
    Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
    Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
    Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
    Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
    Gal. 3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
    Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."
    Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9Not by works, lest any man should boast."
    Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."

Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

"for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law," (Rom. 3:28)

The verses above say that we are justified by faith If you add works as a requirement for salvation, then you aren't saved. A true saving faith generates good works, else it is dead faith.


Quote
There are many more outside the EOC (other denominations) who have truly accepted Jesus as Savior
Quote
I've no doubt that there are Christians outside the EOC. However, there is a visible Church with authority. Else why would the Apostles ordain people? Why would those that learned at their feet speak of this authority? There has to be a visible Church to protect correct belief. The idea that all of the 30,000+ denominations, which all believe radically different things are all the body of Christ is completely silly. God is not the author of confusion.

The difference between Protestant denominations is because of minor differences. E.g Pentecostalism split from other denominations over the issue of speaking in tongues....

They never split over essential doctrines of Christianity. They all confess that Jesus is God in Flesh and many other biblical doctrines. Minor disagreements cause splits (which I agree is very unfortunate). Even the Early Church Fathers disagreed with each other. So it is not common for Protestants to split. Again I agree that this is extremely unfortunate.

The Bible declares that any spirit who confesses that Jesus has come in the Flesh is from God and whoever denies this has the spirit of the antichrist.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 11:23:00 AM by kx9 »

Online Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,223
  • Level 13 Chalcedonian Paladin
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #83 on: September 27, 2012, 11:12:46 AM »

The point is that a person who does not submit himself to the authority of the Church therefore has no authority to judge others who are similarly outside of it, as he is. Yes, I don't think you'd find too many who would argue with you that the JW organization is not reflective of any strain of apostolic Christianity, but coming out of the mouth of a similarly heterodox person, it doesn't really mean much. Why do you think Christ commanded the demons to silence, when they knew He was the Christ? The source of authority matters, and so coming out of the mouths of demons the truth of His messiahship would sound like just another lie. Well, the same can be said for heterodox decrying the heterodoxy of their fellow heterodox. We do not follow whatever page that we can find on the internet to decide what to believe about a group. The heresies embraced by the JWs and others were dealt with by the early Church very capably and thoroughly. This is also why your own viewpoints are being challenged and rejected. We've been here before, and much greater men and women than any of us have ably refuted such doctrines.

Didn't HH Pope Shenouda III write a book on how the JW are an heretical cult?

I've never read it (most of HH's writings are very poorly translated into English, sadly, so I only have a few of his books), but it seems yes, he did.

Heh, I knew it! I read some of HH's books (he even made a quiz on the Bible, that one is great).

However, your attack on kx9 applies to me as well :(
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 11:13:37 AM by Cyrillic »
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

Ἀπ' ὃσα ἒκαμα κι ἀπ’ ὃσα εἶπα
νὰ μὴ ζητήσουνε νὰ βροῦν ποιός ἢμουν
-C.P Cavafy

Offline dzheremi

  • No longer posting here.
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,383
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #84 on: September 27, 2012, 11:14:22 AM »
There are many verses that say we are [justified by faith].

(Huge list of random verses with no context whatsoever)

Oooo, look out everybody, it looks like we're gearing up for a...


Offline dzheremi

  • No longer posting here.
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,383
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #85 on: September 27, 2012, 11:18:33 AM »

The point is that a person who does not submit himself to the authority of the Church therefore has no authority to judge others who are similarly outside of it, as he is. Yes, I don't think you'd find too many who would argue with you that the JW organization is not reflective of any strain of apostolic Christianity, but coming out of the mouth of a similarly heterodox person, it doesn't really mean much. Why do you think Christ commanded the demons to silence, when they knew He was the Christ? The source of authority matters, and so coming out of the mouths of demons the truth of His messiahship would sound like just another lie. Well, the same can be said for heterodox decrying the heterodoxy of their fellow heterodox. We do not follow whatever page that we can find on the internet to decide what to believe about a group. The heresies embraced by the JWs and others were dealt with by the early Church very capably and thoroughly. This is also why your own viewpoints are being challenged and rejected. We've been here before, and much greater men and women than any of us have ably refuted such doctrines.

Didn't HH Pope Shenouda III write a book on how the JW are an heretical cult?

I've never read it (most of HH's writings are very poorly translated into English, sadly, so I only have a few of his books), but it seems yes, he did.

Heh, I knew it! I read some of HH's books (he even made a quiz on the Bible, that one is great).

However, your attack on kx9 applies to me as well :(

Attack? No, no, no, no. Please, my friend, I'm not meaning to attack anyone, only to point out that appealing to an authority that you do not recognize is kind of silly. And anyway, it does not apply to you. You are a catechumen, and by all evidence that I can see here and other places, doing quite well in that role. If kx9 were a catechumen as well, I would not have written what I wrote. There is a world of difference between someone who is seriously inquiring into the Church with the aim of converting and someone who is inquiring into the Church in order to try to make it fit into his own preconceived ideology or epistemology. One is good, as it leads to understanding and faith; the other...well, the other leads to threads like this one. ;)
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 11:19:07 AM by dzheremi »

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #86 on: September 27, 2012, 11:19:03 AM »
The difference between Protestant denominations is because of minor differences. E.g Pentecostalism split from other denominations over the issue of speaking in tongues....

They never split over essential doctrines of Christianity. They all confess that Jesus is God in Flesh and many other biblical doctrines.

The Bible declares that any spirit who confesses that Jesus has come in the Flesh is from God and whoever denies this has the spirit of the antichrist.

So it seems, then, that you'd have no trouble considering a modalist (such as the Oneness Pentecostals) to be part of your body of all believers? Because they certainly don't share a faith with me and the difference is anything but minor.

The problem you're having since you started talking of Sola Fide in this thread is that to us the idea of separating faith and works is nonsense. The two are totally entwined, different sides of the same coin. And for all the quotes you cherry pick (and I'll note that you seem to be either misunderstanding them or failing to spot the frequent references to 'works of the Law') to prove your point, none of them disprove our view at all. On the other hand, there certainly are quotes that would appear to disprove Sola Fide - that's why Luther hated the epistle of James so much.

James
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

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,831
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #87 on: September 27, 2012, 11:21:17 AM »
Quote
The difference between Protestant denominations is because of minor differences. E.g Pentecostalism split from other denominations over the issue of speaking in tongues....

They never split over essential doctrines of Christianity. They all confess that Jesus is God in Flesh and many other biblical doctrines.

Completely and utterly untrue.

To give just one example: the nature and purpose of the Eucharist. A minor matter, or an essential doctrine? There are Protestants which hold that the bread and wine do become the true body and blood of Christ; there are Protestants which regard what is in the chalice as simply bread and wine, and that the sharing of the cup is merely a remembrance, a memorial, and not a sacrament; and there are Protestants who have done away with any form of communion.

They can't all be right.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 11:22:52 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Online Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,223
  • Level 13 Chalcedonian Paladin
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #88 on: September 27, 2012, 11:26:31 AM »

The point is that a person who does not submit himself to the authority of the Church therefore has no authority to judge others who are similarly outside of it, as he is. Yes, I don't think you'd find too many who would argue with you that the JW organization is not reflective of any strain of apostolic Christianity, but coming out of the mouth of a similarly heterodox person, it doesn't really mean much. Why do you think Christ commanded the demons to silence, when they knew He was the Christ? The source of authority matters, and so coming out of the mouths of demons the truth of His messiahship would sound like just another lie. Well, the same can be said for heterodox decrying the heterodoxy of their fellow heterodox. We do not follow whatever page that we can find on the internet to decide what to believe about a group. The heresies embraced by the JWs and others were dealt with by the early Church very capably and thoroughly. This is also why your own viewpoints are being challenged and rejected. We've been here before, and much greater men and women than any of us have ably refuted such doctrines.

Didn't HH Pope Shenouda III write a book on how the JW are an heretical cult?

I've never read it (most of HH's writings are very poorly translated into English, sadly, so I only have a few of his books), but it seems yes, he did.

Heh, I knew it! I read some of HH's books (he even made a quiz on the Bible, that one is great).

However, your attack on kx9 applies to me as well :(

Attack? No, no, no, no. Please, my friend, I'm not meaning to attack anyone, only to point out that appealing to an authority that you do not recognize is kind of silly. And anyway, it does not apply to you. You are a catechumen, and by all evidence that I can see here and other places, doing quite well in that role. If kx9 were a catechumen as well, I would not have written what I wrote. There is a world of difference between someone who is seriously inquiring into the Church with the aim of converting and someone who is inquiring into the Church in order to try to make it fit into his own preconceived ideology or epistemology. One is good, as it leads to understanding and faith; the other...well, the other leads to threads like this one. ;)

I suspected that, I was just kidding a little bit, no hard feelings.
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

Ἀπ' ὃσα ἒκαμα κι ἀπ’ ὃσα εἶπα
νὰ μὴ ζητήσουνε νὰ βροῦν ποιός ἢμουν
-C.P Cavafy

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #89 on: September 27, 2012, 11:34:02 AM »
The difference between Protestant denominations is because of minor differences. E.g Pentecostalism split from other denominations over the issue of speaking in tongues....

They never split over essential doctrines of Christianity. They all confess that Jesus is God in Flesh and many other biblical doctrines.

The Bible declares that any spirit who confesses that Jesus has come in the Flesh is from God and whoever denies this has the spirit of the antichrist.

Quote
So it seems, then, that you'd have no trouble considering a modalist (such as the Oneness Pentecostals) to be part of your body of all believers? Because they certainly don't share a faith with me and the difference is anything but minor.

It is very unfortunate that most people cannot differentiate between a non-Christian cult and a Christian church.

Note that Pentecostalism is within the scope of Christianity, but Oneness Pentecostalism is a cult. It can be confusing since both share a similar name. But you need to know which is which.

Quote
The problem you're having since you started talking of Sola Fide in this thread is that to us the idea of separating faith and works is nonsense. The two are totally entwined, different sides of the same coin.

This is my position, so I agree, both are on the same coin, but only one side of this coin is what save us.

I'm not merely separating faith and works. I'm separating them on the basis of what is a requirement for salvation. I hold to the faith alone doctrine...but still I see good works flowing from me because of my faith.

Quote
And for all the quotes you cherry pick (and I'll note that you seem to be either misunderstanding them or failing to spot the frequent references to 'works of the Law') to prove your point, none of them disprove our view at all. On the other hand, there certainly are quotes that would appear to disprove Sola Fide - that's why Luther hated the epistle of James so much.

I know Luther called the Epistle of James an Epistle of Straw.

However if you try to read James 2:24 the "correct" way, then we see James contradicting the above verses which say that we are justified by faith apart from works.

The truth is : James isn't teaching in that way, but he is teaching the comparison between true faith and dead faith.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 11:36:16 AM by kx9 »

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #90 on: September 27, 2012, 11:37:35 AM »
What I have boldened... is not the point.

So is your point that you're trying to find the bare minimum of what you can do and still be safe?

Quote
Can I just get the answer to my question?

Quote
therefore the EOC should tell [OFFICIALLY] whether they acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?

I did not ask a person's opinion. I asked the official view of the EOC as revealed by the Holy Spirit.

The Church is traditionally compared to Noah's ark.

Quote from: http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm#ii.xv.iii.i.p41
Christ, in the words of St. Paul, is the Head of the Church, and he is the Saviour of the Body, it follows that, to have part in his salvation, we must necessarily be members of his body, that is, of the Catholic Church. Eph. v. 23.

The Apostle Peter writes that baptism saveth us after the figure of the ark of Noah. All who were saved from the general deluge were saved only in the ark; so all who obtain everlasting salvation obtain it only in the one Catholic Church.


But concerning the judgement of men, Church membership in this life isn't the question, but how obedient one is to what God reveals to them. If God gives someone the knowledge of the Church as His body that He established and the opportunity and means to be received into the Church and participate in the worship and live according to what the Church teaches, and that individual acts in defiance, then they will be held accountable for what they did in response to what God showed them.

Quote
230.  Will he judge all men?

Yes. All, without exception.

231.  How will he judge them?

The conscience of every man shall be laid open before all, and not only all deeds which he has ever done in his whole life upon earth be revealed, but also all the words he has spoken, and all his secret wishes and thoughts. The Lord shall come, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the heart: and then shall every man have praise of God. 1 Cor. iv. 5.

232.  Will he then condemn us even for evil words or thoughts?

Without doubt he will, unless we efface them by repentance, faith, and amendment of life. I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Matt. xii. 36.

I hope this helps.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Online Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,223
  • Level 13 Chalcedonian Paladin
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #91 on: September 27, 2012, 11:41:01 AM »
Kx9, what are your definitions of a "cult" and "Christianity".
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 11:41:16 AM by Cyrillic »
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

Ἀπ' ὃσα ἒκαμα κι ἀπ’ ὃσα εἶπα
νὰ μὴ ζητήσουνε νὰ βροῦν ποιός ἢμουν
-C.P Cavafy

Offline dzheremi

  • No longer posting here.
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,383
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #92 on: September 27, 2012, 11:44:23 AM »
I'm not merely separating faith and works. I'm separating them on the basis of what is a requirement for salvation.

And we, by contrast, do not separate them on any basis. Orthodoxy is not minimalist in this way. "Okay, this over here is necessary for salvation, but this over there isn't, so we can separate it out..." -- no. Do you believe that God wastes any words? Because I don't, and as far as I can tell while taking my own baby steps in the faith, such an idea is not a part of Orthodox Christianity. What you'll find being argued against in the Bible is often the attitude that merely following the Jewish law and preforming the works of that law will win salvation. This is absolutely not the case, of course, but if you think about it for five seconds it should be obvious that this fact squares much more with the viewpoint that "these are not enough" that the Orthodox take than with the "we can discard what we don't personally feel is necessary" idea of the Protestants. What is it that is written in the Gospel of St. Matthew? "If someone compels you to go with him one mile, go with him two"? Again, the minimum is not what we are called to do. God is not a C student, and His followers aren't supposed to be, either.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 11:46:42 AM by dzheremi »

Offline mike

  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,594
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #93 on: September 27, 2012, 11:48:47 AM »
The Bible declares that any spirit who confesses that Jesus has come in the Flesh is from God and whoever denies this has the spirit of the antichrist.

Getting insulted by a hetherodox. Does that count as a praise?
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

not everything I typed before [insert current date] may reflect my current views on the subject

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #94 on: September 27, 2012, 11:52:55 AM »
Quote
The problem you're having since you started talking of Sola Fide in this thread is that to us the idea of separating faith and works is nonsense. The two are totally entwined, different sides of the same coin.

This is my position, so I agree, both are on the same coin, but only one side of this coin is what save us.

Our position would be that we are saved by the coin as a whole. We don't believe in faith without works (faith without works is dead) and we don't believe in works without faith (without faith it is impossible to please God). And of course, Paul's statement on hte necessity of love.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline genesisone

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,711
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #95 on: September 27, 2012, 11:54:26 AM »

The difference between Protestant denominations is because of minor differences. E.g Pentecostalism split from other denominations over the issue of speaking in tongues....

They never split over essential doctrines of Christianity. They all confess that Jesus is God in Flesh and many other biblical doctrines. Minor disagreements cause splits (which I agree is very unfortunate). Even the Early Church Fathers disagreed with each other. So it is not common for Protestants to split. Again I agree that this is extremely unfortunate.

The Bible declares that any spirit who confesses that Jesus has come in the Flesh is from God and whoever denies this has the spirit of the antichrist.
It appears that you have been sadly misinformed. In some quarters, Protestantism has degenerated into non-Trinitarianism. For example, The Church of God General Conference. If you read the statement of faith found on their webpage, it will be deceiving. Read the statement of faith as found in their constitution and it will be very clear. Here is a quote from that document:
Quote
A. GOD.  We believe that only one person is God, and that He is a literal corporeal being—
almighty, eternal, immortal, and the Creator of all things.
 B. JESUS CHRIST.  We believe that Jesus Christ, born of the virgin Mary, is the sinless and only
begotten Son of God. He existed only from his birth.
 C. THE HOLY SPIRIT.  We believe that the Holy Spirit is God’s divine power and influence
manifest in God’s mighty works and in the lives of His people. It is not a person.

In that same document they insist that their only authority is Scripture:
Quote
D. THE BIBLE.  We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, given by divine inspiration. It is the
only authoritative source of doctrine and practice for Christians.

These are not minor differences as you assert. Yet they are united with other Protestants in the upholding of Sola Scriptura, thus showing the fallacy of trying to understand the Holy Scriptures (please note that my change from singular to plural is intentional) apart from Tradition and creating tradition instead.

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #96 on: September 27, 2012, 12:02:06 PM »
The difference between Protestant denominations is because of minor differences. E.g Pentecostalism split from other denominations over the issue of speaking in tongues....

They never split over essential doctrines of Christianity. They all confess that Jesus is God in Flesh and many other biblical doctrines.

The Bible declares that any spirit who confesses that Jesus has come in the Flesh is from God and whoever denies this has the spirit of the antichrist.

Quote
So it seems, then, that you'd have no trouble considering a modalist (such as the Oneness Pentecostals) to be part of your body of all believers? Because they certainly don't share a faith with me and the difference is anything but minor.

It is very unfortunate that most people cannot differentiate between a non-Christian cult and a Christian church.

Note that Pentecostalism is within the scope of Christianity, but Oneness Pentecostalism is a cult. It can be confusing since both share a similar name. But you need to know which is which.


I know perfectly well which is which. I'm pretty familiar with Pentecostals and I'm not so sure I'd be able to accept even Trinitarian Pentecostals as having a faith separated from mine only by minor differences. However, my point was that a modalist can confess that Christ was God in the Flesh. So, in a very weird way, can a Mormon. You don't believe that they are small 'o' orthodox Christians any more than I do but they appear to pass your Biblical requirement. So on what basis do you reject them? Tradition, perhaps?

James
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

Online primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,230
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #97 on: September 27, 2012, 12:03:12 PM »
Quote
They never split over essential doctrines of Christianity. They all confess that Jesus is God in Flesh and many other biblical doctrines. Minor disagreements cause splits (which I agree is very unfortunate). Even the Early Church Fathers disagreed with each other. So it is not common for Protestants to split. Again I agree that this is extremely unfortunate
No. They disagree on major issues. Ask a Lutheran and a Presbyterian if their issues are minor.

Better yet, ask a Oneness Pentecostal and a Baptist.

PP
"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

Online primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,230
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #98 on: September 27, 2012, 12:03:57 PM »
Quote
So on what basis do you reject them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils Good place to start.

PP
"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

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #99 on: September 27, 2012, 12:05:07 PM »
Quote
So on what basis do you reject them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils Good place to start.

PP

Yes, but that's our Tradition which he claims not to adhere to.

James
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

Online primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,230
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #100 on: September 27, 2012, 12:07:03 PM »
Quote
So on what basis do you reject them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils Good place to start.

PP

Yes, but that's our Tradition which he claims not to adhere to.

James
True, but we have history backing up our beliefs. They have sour grapes.

PP
"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

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #101 on: September 27, 2012, 12:10:40 PM »
Kx9, what are your definitions of a "cult" and "Christianity".

A non-Christian Cult is a group that claims to be Christian, but denies the essential doctrines of Christianity. E.g Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism (a.k.a The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), Oneness Pentecostals, Christian Science, Christadelphianism, Scientology etc.

A Christian Church will not deny the essential doctrines of Christianity and salvation.

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #102 on: September 27, 2012, 12:14:26 PM »

The difference between Protestant denominations is because of minor differences. E.g Pentecostalism split from other denominations over the issue of speaking in tongues....

They never split over essential doctrines of Christianity. They all confess that Jesus is God in Flesh and many other biblical doctrines. Minor disagreements cause splits (which I agree is very unfortunate). Even the Early Church Fathers disagreed with each other. So it is not common for Protestants to split. Again I agree that this is extremely unfortunate.

The Bible declares that any spirit who confesses that Jesus has come in the Flesh is from God and whoever denies this has the spirit of the antichrist.
It appears that you have been sadly misinformed. In some quarters, Protestantism has degenerated into non-Trinitarianism. For example, The Church of God General Conference. If you read the statement of faith found on their webpage, it will be deceiving. Read the statement of faith as found in their constitution and it will be very clear. Here is a quote from that document:
Quote
A. GOD.  We believe that only one person is God, and that He is a literal corporeal being—
almighty, eternal, immortal, and the Creator of all things.
 B. JESUS CHRIST.  We believe that Jesus Christ, born of the virgin Mary, is the sinless and only
begotten Son of God. He existed only from his birth.
 C. THE HOLY SPIRIT.  We believe that the Holy Spirit is God’s divine power and influence
manifest in God’s mighty works and in the lives of His people. It is not a person.

In that same document they insist that their only authority is Scripture:
Quote
D. THE BIBLE.  We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, given by divine inspiration. It is the
only authoritative source of doctrine and practice for Christians.

These are not minor differences as you assert. Yet they are united with other Protestants in the upholding of Sola Scriptura, thus showing the fallacy of trying to understand the Holy Scriptures (please note that my change from singular to plural is intentional) apart from Tradition and creating tradition instead.

I know all this. Church of God General Conference is not a Christian Church nor it is Protestant. It fits the definition of a cult perfectly! Note that these doctrines are a major deviation from true Christianity. They are not minor differences at all.

No need to tell me that I am misinformed. I know quite a lot as I have high interest in analyzing and reading about non-Christian cults.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 12:24:24 PM by kx9 »

Online primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,230
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #103 on: September 27, 2012, 12:17:35 PM »
Kx9, what are your definitions of a "cult" and "Christianity".

A non-Christian Cult is a group that claims to be Christian, but denies the essential doctrines of Christianity. E.g Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism (a.k.a The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), Oneness Pentecostals, Christian Science, Christadelphianism, Scientology etc.

A Christian Church will not deny the essential doctrines of Christianity and salvation.
However, they will say you are not Christians, and they hold the essential doctrines of Christianity. Because of your reasons for having a church and a denomination, they are also obliged to do the same thing and neither one of you can really attack the other.

Orthodoxy on the other hand, has held the same faith since the time of the Apostles, and more so, we can point to historical fact and the teaching of the fathers to prove it.

These groups you name have the same legitimization, based on your own denomination's reasons for leaving (insert here) Church as they do. It is truly, the pot calling the kettle black. Not to even start in on the whole "invisible church" silliness thrown into the mix.

PP
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 12:18:37 PM by primuspilus »
"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

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #104 on: September 27, 2012, 12:17:44 PM »
Quote
So on what basis do you reject them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils Good place to start.

PP

Yes, but that's our Tradition which he claims not to adhere to.

James

Not right. I use the definitions of these Ecumenical Councils to identify heresies as do many of the Evangelical Christians on CARM.

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #105 on: September 27, 2012, 12:21:37 PM »
Kx9, what are your definitions of a "cult" and "Christianity".

A non-Christian Cult is a group that claims to be Christian, but denies the essential doctrines of Christianity. E.g Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism (a.k.a The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), Oneness Pentecostals, Christian Science, Christadelphianism, Scientology etc.

A Christian Church will not deny the essential doctrines of Christianity and salvation.
However, they will say you are not Christians, and they hold the essential doctrines of Christianity. Because of your reasons for having a church and a denomination, they are also obliged to do the same thing and neither one of you can really attack the other.

Orthodoxy on the other hand, has held the same faith since the time of the Apostles, and more so, we can point to historical fact and the teaching of the fathers to prove it.

These groups you name have the same legitimization, based on your own denomination's reasons for leaving (insert here) Church as they do. It is truly, the pot calling the kettle black. Not to even start in on the whole "invisible church" silliness thrown into the mix.

PP

All of the Cults claim the same thing, they claim that the Church has apostatized and God has used them to restore the original Church and that they alone are the true Church outside which there is no salvation.

On contrast, the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and [real] Protestants acknowledge that anyone can be in these three Churches can still be saved.

That's the big difference!

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,576
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #106 on: September 27, 2012, 12:26:58 PM »
Quote
Kindly make your answer clear : Does the Orthodox Church believe that faith in Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is not sufficient for salvation?
Faith without works is dead ;)

PP

Agreed.

But do you agree that [faith alone] (the type of faith that generates good works) is sufficient to save?

If yes, then Sola Fide is 100% biblical.

You posit a tautology, therefore your argument is ultimately unconvincing or useless in practice. Let me ask instead how John 6:53 (see below) figures in your estimation of how and when salvation occurs?

"Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."




Then what did Jesus mean when He explained to His disciples that the flesh counts for nothing?

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

If you read this verse in context, I think that you will see that the Lord was talking about His Body and Blood in non-materialistic terms. Indeed, if I may paraphrase, I think that He is saying: you cannot understand my hard saying above if you use materialistic terms or human reasoning (wy of the flesh). You will know the truth of my hard saying after/when you believe through the Spirit (note the capitalization).

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #107 on: September 27, 2012, 12:30:46 PM »
Quote
They never split over essential doctrines of Christianity. They all confess that Jesus is God in Flesh and many other biblical doctrines. Minor disagreements cause splits (which I agree is very unfortunate). Even the Early Church Fathers disagreed with each other. So it is not common for Protestants to split. Again I agree that this is extremely unfortunate
No. They disagree on major issues. Ask a Lutheran and a Presbyterian if their issues are minor.

Better yet, ask a Oneness Pentecostal and a Baptist.

PP

Lutheran and Calvinist teachings differ widely only in the teachings of Luther and Calvin, but both hold to salvation by faith alone by the Scriptures. They both affirm the Trinity and the deity of Christ.


Oneness Pentecostal is a Cult, not a Protestant Church. They deny the Trinity.

Online Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,223
  • Level 13 Chalcedonian Paladin
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #108 on: September 27, 2012, 12:33:20 PM »
Kx9, what are your definitions of a "cult" and "Christianity".

A non-Christian Cult is a group that claims to be Christian, but denies the essential doctrines of Christianity. E.g Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism (a.k.a The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), Oneness Pentecostals, Christian Science, Christadelphianism, Scientology etc.

A Christian Church will not deny the essential doctrines of Christianity and salvation.

What are the "essential doctrines"? And, more importantly, who determines what's "essential"?
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

Ἀπ' ὃσα ἒκαμα κι ἀπ’ ὃσα εἶπα
νὰ μὴ ζητήσουνε νὰ βροῦν ποιός ἢμουν
-C.P Cavafy

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #109 on: September 27, 2012, 12:37:48 PM »
Sounds Protestant to me, but I don't think you know it yet.
You have three main groups as I see it:

Orthodox
Catholic
Protestant/Reformed (nondenominational falls into this)

I would also add Baptists and Messianic Judaism to that list of believers.
Baptists - No, they fall into Protestant/reformed
Messianic Jews - I don't know enough to say.

Messianic Jews are those Jews who have accepted Jesus as the Messiah. It is a blend of Christianity and Judaism together. They affirm the Trinity and that Jesus is God the Son and that salvation is achieved by accepting Jesus as Savior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Jews

Er, not quite. Quite a few of them are strong Arians in that they deny the Divinity of Our Lord.

The official teachings of Messianic Judaism are within scope of biblical Christianity AFAIK.

Individuals may be Arians. I have seen RC-tuned-atheists in the Catholic Church also. Might exist also in the EOC. We can't know the faith of  people's hearts.

Online primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,230
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #110 on: September 27, 2012, 12:50:24 PM »
Quote
All of the Cults claim the same thing, they claim that the Church has apostatized and God has used them to restore the original Church and that they alone are the true Church outside which there is no salvation.

On contrast, the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and [real] Protestants acknowledge that anyone can be in these three Churches can still be saved.

That's the big difference!
But that is simply the opinions of these people. The other denominations say the same thing. Because you deny authority of leadership in the Church, your argument has no weight.

Historically and in scripture, the leaders of the visible church held authority. If you deny this authority, you cant attack someone for not accepting your "authoritative" statements that you said.

PP
"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

Offline genesisone

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,711
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #111 on: September 27, 2012, 01:18:59 PM »

The difference between Protestant denominations is because of minor differences. E.g Pentecostalism split from other denominations over the issue of speaking in tongues....

They never split over essential doctrines of Christianity. They all confess that Jesus is God in Flesh and many other biblical doctrines. Minor disagreements cause splits (which I agree is very unfortunate). Even the Early Church Fathers disagreed with each other. So it is not common for Protestants to split. Again I agree that this is extremely unfortunate.

The Bible declares that any spirit who confesses that Jesus has come in the Flesh is from God and whoever denies this has the spirit of the antichrist.
It appears that you have been sadly misinformed. In some quarters, Protestantism has degenerated into non-Trinitarianism. For example, The Church of God General Conference. If you read the statement of faith found on their webpage, it will be deceiving. Read the statement of faith as found in their constitution and it will be very clear. Here is a quote from that document:
Quote
A. GOD.  We believe that only one person is God, and that He is a literal corporeal being—
almighty, eternal, immortal, and the Creator of all things.
 B. JESUS CHRIST.  We believe that Jesus Christ, born of the virgin Mary, is the sinless and only
begotten Son of God. He existed only from his birth.
 C. THE HOLY SPIRIT.  We believe that the Holy Spirit is God’s divine power and influence
manifest in God’s mighty works and in the lives of His people. It is not a person.

In that same document they insist that their only authority is Scripture:
Quote
D. THE BIBLE.  We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, given by divine inspiration. It is the
only authoritative source of doctrine and practice for Christians.

These are not minor differences as you assert. Yet they are united with other Protestants in the upholding of Sola Scriptura, thus showing the fallacy of trying to understand the Holy Scriptures (please note that my change from singular to plural is intentional) apart from Tradition and creating tradition instead.

I know all this. Church of God General Conference is not a Christian Church nor it is Protestant. It fits the definition of a cult perfectly! Note that these doctrines are a major deviation from true Christianity. They are not minor differences at all.

No need to tell me that I am misinformed. I know quite a lot as I have high interest in analyzing and reading about non-Christian cults.
And yet they base their beliefs firmly on "the Bible". They follow exactly the same reasoning as many (not all) Protestants. That is my point: that Sola Scriptura can and does lead to heresy.

Online ZealousZeal

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,040
  • Ecce homo
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #112 on: September 27, 2012, 03:25:00 PM »
This thread is evidence itself that Sola Scriptura is not a system that can be successful for Christian belief. The Bible does not interpret itself, and each reader then becomes the arbiter of what any given passage means, what is or is not doctrine, what the correct way to read the Bible is, etc. It's madness. Dzheremi's "Bible War" picture is too true: all you can do is Scripture-bomb your opponent with the verses you've cherry-picked to support your view.

Finally, re: Protestants being separated by only "minor differences"... I don't see how anyone could believe that to be true unless the entirety of Christian doctrine was merely that Jesus died on the cross and then rose again... the rest being just details. Is baptism necessary for salvation? If not, do you have to even do it? What about the gifts of the spirit? Do you have to speak in tongues? Is speaking in tongues demonic? What is communion, really? When is the Lord's Day, really? Does it matter? Can women be pastors? Do women have to cover their heads? Who decides what issues are important and what issues are minor? Perhaps my Bible is missing a glossary that lays it all out.  ::)
"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,363
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #113 on: September 27, 2012, 03:45:05 PM »
This thread is evidence itself that Sola Scriptura is not a system that can be successful for Christian belief. The Bible does not interpret itself, and each reader then becomes the arbiter of what any given passage means,

Sorry but I doubt most here have done any serious reading of Luther's hermeneutics nor understand how he expanded the work of St. Augustine own work (the medieval period much didn't happen in terms of hermeneutical development).

Bottom line. Almost no one here could give a decent account of Sola Scriptura. That is about all that this thread proves.

And I can certainly assure you that in fact this is correct:

The Bible does in interpret itself in light of each reader who is indeed the only arbiter of what any given passage means which it to say its context.

The problem faced by those who don't understand Sola Scriptura properly and it further developments (read all relevant hermeneutic research within its wake) is that they have an improper understanding of many things including the following:

Interpretation
Text
Subject
Tradition

Luther altered how we understand how we understand.

Not even EOs can escape that epochal change. The very argument from of reading Tradition rests upon Sola Scriptura when properly understood.
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Online ZealousZeal

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,040
  • Ecce homo
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #114 on: September 27, 2012, 03:57:10 PM »
You are over my head at the moment, orthonorm. But I am curious- if almost no one here can give a decent account of Sola Scriptura do you think that's representative of Protestantism as a whole? If so, then how much does it matter what Sola Scriptura is supposed to mean, if (seemingly) no one means it that way anymore? No snark. (<--- which is to say, no snark intended from me. Sounds like I'm preemptively bossing you.)
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 03:57:53 PM by ZealousZeal »
"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,363
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #115 on: September 27, 2012, 04:13:30 PM »
You are over my head at the moment, orthonorm. But I am curious- if almost no one here can give a decent account of Sola Scriptura do you think that's representative of Protestantism as a whole? If so, then how much does it matter what Sola Scriptura is supposed to mean, if (seemingly) no one means it that way anymore? No snark.

Of course it representative, especially here in the States. Where else do the people get their ridiculous notion of what Sola Scriptura is? How many members on this forum have read much of Luther and studies on his hermeneutical method? I would hazard not many. In fact, I probably could guess those who have.

One of the problems with the gross misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura and its development within thought on this board is that it creates an unnecessary divide on matters of no import between "classical" Lutherans and the Orthodox. Most of the Solas do just that.

Maybe Punch can weigh in here as he is a well catechized Lutheran who is now Orthodox.

People think OOs and EOs are close? Or that RCs and EOs are close? Or "conservative Anglicans" and EOs are close?

For my money, I would say you'd probably find the least amount of difference between a well catechized contemporary classical Lutheran and well catechized contemporary EO.

That's about all I have time for, maybe I will comeback later to expand. But I am extremely tight for time at the moment.

FWIW, I've never been a Lutheran. I just had to read more than I wished of Luther and lived in some LutherLands.
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Offline genesisone

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,711
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #116 on: September 27, 2012, 04:44:11 PM »

Of course it representative, especially here in the States. Where else do the people get their ridiculous notion of what Sola Scriptura is? How many members on this forum have read much of Luther and studies on his hermeneutical method? I would hazard not many. In fact, I probably could guess those who have.

One of the problems with the gross misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura and its development within thought on this board is that it creates an unnecessary divide on matters of no import between "classical" Lutherans and the Orthodox. Most of the Solas do just that.

No argument here with your position. A lot changes over the course of a few hundred years. Undoubtedly most (all?) of the early Reformers and others such as John Wesley would cringe at the early twenty-first century usages of the words they used - and even of their own names.

Perhaps there is another term for the theology frequently found in contemporary Protestantism and its offshoots that claims to use "the Bible" (however defined) as a sole source of authority, using as a methodology selected and often unrelated verses and longer passages that support the doctrinal flavour of the day.

If you can suggest a term, it would keep us from having to insert "Sola Scriptura in its modern and commonly but poorly understood usage".  :)

Offline Doubting Thomas

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 883
  • Anglican (but not Episcopagan)
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #117 on: September 27, 2012, 05:15:57 PM »
All existing Christian communities that cannot be categorized as Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Catholics or Nestorians are Protestants for me.
Does this include Anglican Catholics?  ;D

*kuch* 39 articles *kuch*

And?

Ever read it?

Yep.

They sound horribly protestant to me.

Maybe.  But I guess it's sorta like interpreting Scripture--depending on who's reading it, it can sound obviously Catholic (or Orthodox) or Protestant (in a variety of flavors).  Within the wider context of the BCP and the ORDINAL, and the desire expressed in classical Anglican thought not to teach anything out of Scripture that's inconsistent with what the ancient catholic Doctors got out of the same, the Articles are certainly patent of a more catholic interpretation than some of it's detractors (or adherents for that matter) care to admit. 

As for Anglican Catholics in the Continuum, the Articles are indeed interepreted in light of the patristic consensus as is broadly stated in the Affirmation of St Louis (including 7 Councils and 7 sacraments)

I do know that it can be interpreted in a wide sense (I have read Tract 90) but it's rather unconvincing. Didn't the king who promulgated those articles added an edict to it in which he outlawed any interpretation but the most obvious and literal one?

Not exactly.  King Charles I  is the one who added the preface (1628) stating that the articles needed to be interpreted in their plain sense. (An Anglo-Calvinist he was NOT.) The Articles were written during the time of Elizabeth.

On the Continuum blogsite, two  Anglican Catholic priests there have been going through the 39 Articles in a series called 'Laymen's Guide to the 39 Articles' to demonstrate the catholic meaning is the plain meaning (or at least not inconsistent with it).
"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,375
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #118 on: September 28, 2012, 01:31:19 AM »
Kx9, what are your definitions of a "cult" and "Christianity".

A non-Christian Cult is a group that claims to be Christian, but denies the essential doctrines of Christianity. E.g Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism (a.k.a The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), Oneness Pentecostals, Christian Science, Christadelphianism, Scientology etc.

A Christian Church will not deny the essential doctrines of Christianity and salvation.
But who defines the essential doctrines of Christianity and salvation, and on what authority do you make these determinations?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,375
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #119 on: September 28, 2012, 01:32:23 AM »
Quote
So on what basis do you reject them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils Good place to start.

PP

Yes, but that's our Tradition which he claims not to adhere to.

James

Not right. I use the definitions of these Ecumenical Councils to identify heresies as do many of the Evangelical Christians on CARM.
Then you don't really believe in sola scriptura. You follow an extra-biblical tradition.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,375
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #120 on: September 28, 2012, 01:32:46 AM »
Quote
Kindly make your answer clear : Does the Orthodox Church believe that faith in Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is not sufficient for salvation?
Faith without works is dead ;)

PP

Agreed.

But do you agree that [faith alone] (the type of faith that generates good works) is sufficient to save?

If yes, then Sola Fide is 100% biblical.
How do you define faith?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Keble

  • All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,492
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #121 on: September 28, 2012, 06:26:45 AM »
This thread is evidence itself that Sola Scriptura is not a system that can be successful for Christian belief. The Bible does not interpret itself, and each reader then becomes the arbiter of what any given passage means, what is or is not doctrine, what the correct way to read the Bible is, etc.

You're not talking about sola scriptura; you're talking about private interpretation.

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #122 on: September 28, 2012, 06:40:48 AM »
Kx9, what are your definitions of a "cult" and "Christianity".

A non-Christian Cult is a group that claims to be Christian, but denies the essential doctrines of Christianity. E.g Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism (a.k.a The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), Oneness Pentecostals, Christian Science, Christadelphianism, Scientology etc.

A Christian Church will not deny the essential doctrines of Christianity and salvation.
However, they will say you are not Christians, and they hold the essential doctrines of Christianity. Because of your reasons for having a church and a denomination, they are also obliged to do the same thing and neither one of you can really attack the other.

Orthodoxy on the other hand, has held the same faith since the time of the Apostles, and more so, we can point to historical fact and the teaching of the fathers to prove it.

These groups you name have the same legitimization, based on your own denomination's reasons for leaving (insert here) Church as they do. It is truly, the pot calling the kettle black. Not to even start in on the whole "invisible church" silliness thrown into the mix.

PP

All of the Cults claim the same thing, they claim that the Church has apostatized and God has used them to restore the original Church and that they alone are the true Church outside which there is no salvation.

On contrast, the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and [real] Protestants acknowledge that anyone can be in these three Churches can still be saved.

That's the big difference!
What do you consider a "real" Protestant?  I remember a few years ago a fellow who called himself a real Baptist.  When I said I was too, this started a three day debate and he ended very angry at me.

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #123 on: September 28, 2012, 06:43:15 AM »
Quote
They never split over essential doctrines of Christianity. They all confess that Jesus is God in Flesh and many other biblical doctrines. Minor disagreements cause splits (which I agree is very unfortunate). Even the Early Church Fathers disagreed with each other. So it is not common for Protestants to split. Again I agree that this is extremely unfortunate
No. They disagree on major issues. Ask a Lutheran and a Presbyterian if their issues are minor.

Better yet, ask a Oneness Pentecostal and a Baptist.

PP

Lutheran and Calvinist teachings differ widely only in the teachings of Luther and Calvin, but both hold to salvation by faith alone by the Scriptures. They both affirm the Trinity and the deity of Christ.


Oneness Pentecostal is a Cult, not a Protestant Church. They deny the Trinity.
If I may offer a correction.  It's salvation by grace alone, through faith.  Orthodoxy also teaches salvation by grace.  So, where does that leave us?

Also, do you mean the Trinity NOT mentioned in scriptures?
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 06:44:15 AM by Kerdy »

Online Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,223
  • Level 13 Chalcedonian Paladin
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #124 on: September 28, 2012, 07:29:18 AM »
Quote
So on what basis do you reject them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils Good place to start.

PP

Yes, but that's our Tradition which he claims not to adhere to.

James

Not right. I use the definitions of these Ecumenical Councils to identify heresies as do many of the Evangelical Christians on CARM.

Tell me how the evangelicals deal with the definition of the seventh ecumenical councils which defines them as heretics.
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

Ἀπ' ὃσα ἒκαμα κι ἀπ’ ὃσα εἶπα
νὰ μὴ ζητήσουνε νὰ βροῦν ποιός ἢμουν
-C.P Cavafy

Online primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,230
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #125 on: September 28, 2012, 10:24:07 AM »
Quote
Tell me how the evangelicals deal with the definition of the seventh ecumenical councils which defines them as heretics
Because they've never studied them at all.

PP
"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

Online Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,223
  • Level 13 Chalcedonian Paladin
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #126 on: September 28, 2012, 10:40:27 AM »
All existing Christian communities that cannot be categorized as Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Catholics or Nestorians are Protestants for me.
Does this include Anglican Catholics?  ;D

*kuch* 39 articles *kuch*

And?

Ever read it?

Yep.

They sound horribly protestant to me.

Maybe.  But I guess it's sorta like interpreting Scripture--depending on who's reading it, it can sound obviously Catholic (or Orthodox) or Protestant (in a variety of flavors).  Within the wider context of the BCP and the ORDINAL, and the desire expressed in classical Anglican thought not to teach anything out of Scripture that's inconsistent with what the ancient catholic Doctors got out of the same, the Articles are certainly patent of a more catholic interpretation than some of it's detractors (or adherents for that matter) care to admit. 

As for Anglican Catholics in the Continuum, the Articles are indeed interepreted in light of the patristic consensus as is broadly stated in the Affirmation of St Louis (including 7 Councils and 7 sacraments)

I do know that it can be interpreted in a wide sense (I have read Tract 90) but it's rather unconvincing. Didn't the king who promulgated those articles added an edict to it in which he outlawed any interpretation but the most obvious and literal one?

Not exactly.  King Charles I  is the one who added the preface (1628) stating that the articles needed to be interpreted in their plain sense. (An Anglo-Calvinist he was NOT.) The Articles were written during the time of Elizabeth.

On the Continuum blogsite, two  Anglican Catholic priests there have been going through the 39 Articles in a series called 'Laymen's Guide to the 39 Articles' to demonstrate the catholic meaning is the plain meaning (or at least not inconsistent with it).

Some of the problematic articles:

 "The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God. (Article XXII)"

"There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. (Article XXV)"

"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. (Article XXVIII)"

"The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God. (Article V)"

" We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification. (Article XI)"

Of course, you can twist and turn, but these articles are neither catholic nor orthodox.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 10:42:26 AM by Cyrillic »
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

Ἀπ' ὃσα ἒκαμα κι ἀπ’ ὃσα εἶπα
νὰ μὴ ζητήσουνε νὰ βροῦν ποιός ἢμουν
-C.P Cavafy

Offline HabteSelassie

  • Ises and I-ity
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,332
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #127 on: September 28, 2012, 11:24:24 AM »
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


Not exactly.  King Charles I  is the one who added the preface (1628) stating that the articles needed to be interpreted in their plain sense. (An Anglo-upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God. (Article XXII)"

"There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. (Article XXV)"


Agreed, any rejection of the holistically complete SEVEN Divine Mysteries is soundly contrary to Orthodox and Catholic Church, which is by definition the CHurch of the Mysteries :)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Offline Doubting Thomas

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 883
  • Anglican (but not Episcopagan)
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #128 on: October 03, 2012, 12:43:18 PM »


Some of the problematic articles:

 "The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God. (Article XXII)"

The 'Romish Doctrine' involving Purgatory et al is what is being criticized and rightly so. In the Middle Ages there was the idea of the 'Treasury of Merit' which in part was believed to consist of the superrogatory works of the saints and could be tapped into (by way of pilgrimages, adoring images/relics*, etc) to lessen one's time in Purgatory (an alleged place without any Scriptural or patristic proof) .  The result was to minimize the Atoning work of Christ and to vainly think the merits of other human beings (who themselves needed salvation) could be given to us if we performed certain works/rituals, seemingly irrespective of one's reliance on CHRIST Himself.  The practical result of the 'Romish doctrine' was to make the saints (and their relics) seem more important than the finished work of Christ on the cross;  it blurred the distinction between the Savior and the saints and between the Creator and the creatures. 

As far as I know, the 'SMIPC'(Superrogatory Merit/Indulgences/Purgatory Complex  8) ) is not an Eastern doctrine, so I don't see why this Article, once understood in it's historical context, would be objected to by the Eastern Orthodox.

The bottom line is, asking a saint (living or dead) to intercede for you is one thing; but supposing his/her alleged superrogatory merit can somehow be credited to your account to lessen your time in purgatory is quite another.

(*And isn't 'adoring' images/saints forbidden by the 7th Ecumenical Council?  'Adoration/Worship' is for God/Christ alone; 'veneration' describes the reverence given to saints/icons)

Quote
"There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
I don't see why this is a problem. In the Gospels, these are the two sacraments specifically ordained by Christ.

Quote
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. (Article XXV)"
The Article doesn't strictly deny these are sacramental, just that they aren't 'sacraments of the gospel' (ie ordained by Christ) in the same way Baptism and Communion are. 

However, to clarify, I'd add  the distinction (btw the two gospel sacraments and the other 5) also lies in that Baptism and Communion are specifically ordained means of our union with Christ:  Baptism being our death/burial/resurrection with Christ (and are putting on Christ) and Communion being are feeding on Christ so that we abide in Him and He in us.

Quote
"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. (Article XXVIII)"
Don't understand the problem here.  One can believe in the 'Real Presence' without dogmatically subscribing to one particular Medieval theory about how the same transpires.

Quote
"The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God. (Article V)"

I sympathize with you here, but this criticism extends to the RCC as well. 
'And the Son' can be understood in an orthodox way, but I agree that for clarity sake it should be: (1) changed to 'through the Son' or (2) dropped all together. (When I say the Creed in church, I say "through the Son")

Quote
" We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification. (Article XI)"

This is true in a real sense--Christ's work (His perfect obedience and sacrificial death of the Cross) is the meritorious ground for our justification. Paul is pretty clear about this in Romans and Galatians (and in his other epistles as well) One cannot put God into one's debt with his own works (since all have sinned and fall short of God's glory and the wages of sin is death--Rom 3:23, 6:23), and God justifies the 'ungodly' (Rom 4:4-5) through faith in Christ (since He alone was sinless).  And onne doesn't earn one's way into Christ--it is a gift of grace.  In the historical context, in which the Reformers were striving againt the SMIPC (ie the Superrogatory-Indulgences-Purgatory Complex  ;D ), the truth of this Article was definitely needed to correct unbiblical accretions/distortions to the Gospel.

However this Article could perhaps be clarified to better explain how James' concerns fits in with Paul's teaching, as James teaches that there is another sense in which we ARE 'justified by our works', and this as that they are evidence of a living faith (in fact the subsequent Article makes mention of this)--a mere intellectual assent is a 'dead faith' and thus cannot justify/save.  At any rate, the Homily on Justification does a good job expanding on this. 

If I were to rewrite the Article for today, I'd do so as follows: "We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own meritorious works or deservings. Wherefore, we are justified by Faith apart from the deeds of the Law (Rom 3:28), but not a faith that is an intellectual assent alone (James 2:14), but a faith which works through love (Gal 5:6)" .  (However, I have no problem with the Article as written once understood in it's historical context and read along with the subsequent Article and the Homily on Justification)
.

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33

Offline Doubting Thomas

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 883
  • Anglican (but not Episcopagan)
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #129 on: October 03, 2012, 12:48:55 PM »
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


Not exactly.  King Charles I  is the one who added the preface (1628) stating that the articles needed to be interpreted in their plain sense. (An Anglo-upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God. (Article XXII)"

"There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. (Article XXV)"


Agreed, any rejection of the holistically complete SEVEN Divine Mysteries is soundly contrary to Orthodox and Catholic Church, which is by definition the CHurch of the Mysteries :)

stay blessed,
habte selassie

How can these seven be 'holistically complete" when Marriage and Orders are included?  Not everyone is called to be married or called to holy orders.  So although these are sacramental, they aren't necessary for salvation in the same way Baptism and Communion are...unless you are suggesting the unmarried and unordained can't be saved.  :o

(But perhaps you meant "holistically complete" in a different way than I'm supposing here :) )
"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33

Online Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,223
  • Level 13 Chalcedonian Paladin
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #130 on: October 03, 2012, 01:13:52 PM »
For the first article ("The Romish Doctrine concerning etc)" I only objected to the condemnation of those that I underlined.

(*And isn't 'adoring' images/saints forbidden by the 7th Ecumenical Council?  'Adoration/Worship' is for God/Christ alone; 'veneration' describes the reverence given to saints/icons)

No, worship here is latreia and adoration is proskynesis. That's why the composers of the article placed worshipping and adoration next to eachother.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 01:15:44 PM by Cyrillic »
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

Ἀπ' ὃσα ἒκαμα κι ἀπ’ ὃσα εἶπα
νὰ μὴ ζητήσουνε νὰ βροῦν ποιός ἢμουν
-C.P Cavafy

Offline xariskai

  • юродивый/yurodivy
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,591
  • יהוה עזי ומגני
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #131 on: October 03, 2012, 01:34:51 PM »
Luther altered how we understand how we understand.

Not even EOs can escape that epochal change. The very argument from of reading Tradition rests upon Sola Scriptura when properly understood.

As a caveat one might well suggest that the Barth/Bonhoeffer/Torrance/Bloesch trajectory presents a significant "escape" for many Protestants from the scholastic and humanist trajectory of scientific hermeneuitics and grammatical/historical exegesis which itself, of course, ran into something of a "ditch" (technical reference to the hermeneutical revolutions from Herder, Lessing etc. to Gadamer et al). Further, though the Barthian paradigm of revelation was considered revolutionary in the West it arguably developed in an even more paletable form in the likes of St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. Maximos, and others centuries prior, albeit the patristic phronema seems far more comprehensive (at least to me) than the Neoorthodox/Barthian conception of the Spirit communicating the living Word as articulated by major proponents. Neoorthodoxy to me simply pales by comparison.

But I do think not only that EO "escapes" scholastic and humanist rationalism as embodied in the major Western hermeneutical revolutions, but that the apparent contemporary shipwreck of those very revolutions in the West leading to the likes of postmodernist relativism and radical skepticism per such things as fusion with horizon of intent is the strongest challenge in our time to the doctrine f sola scriptura (far more challenging than questions from e.g. classical Roman Catholic apologetics), which is arguably little more than an offshoot gone wild of medieval foundationalist epistemology in and of itself (i.e. "a peculiar form of Roman Catholicism" to borrow a well known phrase).

For a partial glimpse of how the demise of said rationalism and hermeneutical foundationalism has led to a crisis in sola scriptura (at the forefront of *academic* Protestantism at least ...fundamentalism is a different beast), cf. this article by Protestant scholar James Sawyer: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37670.0.html
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 02:05:51 PM by xariskai »

Offline Happy Lutheran

  • Servant of Christ
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 308
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #132 on: October 03, 2012, 06:55:36 PM »
I'm confused by the original post? Sola Scripture enough to have life with Christ and salvation? Johns Gospel states he wrote that so we can have life in his name. Does scripture alone have all truth? I doubt it.
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

Offline xariskai

  • юродивый/yurodivy
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,591
  • יהוה עזי ומגני
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: is sola scriptura Biblical?
« Reply #133 on: October 03, 2012, 08:50:20 PM »
Sola Scripture enough to have life with Christ and salvation? Johns Gospel states he wrote that so we can have life in his name.
That we can, or more precisely, that we might. If you will excuse me I will respond to more than I suspect you are actually saying here as a digression regarding the Reformation attempt to "fly the scripture solo" (or sola, for these are not really the same) on the basis of the verse you are referring to (Jn 20:31), which I don't think works grammatically.

In the Greek text the clauses translated "that you might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (ἵνα πιστεύητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεο) and "that believing you might have life in his name" (καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτο) each employ second person plural present subjunctive active Greek verbs, πιστεύητε, and ἔχητε respectively. The subjunctive mood expresses probability rather than certainty; if certainty or material sufficiency was being affirmed we would find the indicative mood rather than the subjunctive. The grammar used in these conditional clauses does not present a "sufficient condition," and for that reason cannot support a doctrine of a sola-sufficiency of "these things which have been written" (ταῦτα γέγραπται) artificially removed or abstracted from all other possible conditions, conditions which are in fact present in the NT writings taken as a whole, like the indispensible role of the Holy Spirit in illuminating the scriptures just for one. The Reformation doctrine of the "sola-sufficiency" of scripture as an abstraction from other considerations therefore does not really find full support in the Greek text of John's Gospel and is in effect an exercise in scholastic and hermeneutical rationalism. The meaning of scripture is not found in grammatical/historical exegesis alone either for that matter. Only the Son though the Holy Spirit reveals the Father, not scripture alone, though scripture is given that we might know the Son. There is no warrant for abstracting such considerations from their broader soteriological and scriptural matrix, and there are many consequences which follow when this is done.

Again I think the Presbyterian Neoorthodox scholar Dr. James Sawyer linked in my previous post has nailed the crux of the real problem with his tongue-in-cheek phrases like "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Scriptures" and "Nuda Scriptura" (which is technically closer to solo scriptura than sola scriptura, but which his essay points out sola scriptura typically devolves to in fundamentalist Protestantism with its triplet hermeneutic and ecclesiastical crises of legitimization, pluralization, and fragmentation).  
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 09:12:00 PM by xariskai »