OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 02:41:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: is sola scriptura Biblical?  (Read 3972 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« 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.

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.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« 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 » Logged

On a OC.net diet.
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« 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 » Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« 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?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« 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.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,454



« 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.
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #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
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,196


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« 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
Logged

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,196


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« 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
Logged

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #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
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,196


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« 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
Logged

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« 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.
Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« 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 » Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,196


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« 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 » Logged

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« 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.
Logged
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« 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!
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,525



« 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 Wink

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).
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« 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.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« 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"?
Logged

On a OC.net diet.
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« 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.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,196


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« 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
Logged

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,454



« 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.
Logged
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,643



« 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.  Roll Eyes
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« 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.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,643



« 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 » Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« 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.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,454



« 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".  Smiley
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« 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?  Grin

*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).
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,561


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,561


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,561


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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 Wink

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

Posts: 3,372



« 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.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« 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.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« 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 » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« 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.
Logged

On a OC.net diet.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,196


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« 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
Logged

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

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« 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?  Grin

*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 » Logged

On a OC.net diet.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« 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 Smiley

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

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

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« 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  Cool ) 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  Grin ), 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)
.

Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« 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 Smiley

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.  Shocked

(But perhaps you meant "holistically complete" in a different way than I'm supposing here Smiley )
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« 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 » Logged

On a OC.net diet.
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,259


יהוה עזי ומגני


« 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 » Logged

Silly Stars
Happy Lutheran
Servant of Christ
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Lutheran
Posts: 256



« 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.
Logged

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,259


יהוה עזי ומגני


« 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 » Logged

Silly Stars
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.185 seconds with 72 queries.