Interested
Member
Yes.Are they not on equal footing? "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
Yes.Are they not on equal footing? "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
If a Christian considers himself "their own authority", then they're just as wrong as the Catholic who says the pope and the Magisterium is their authorty.And the Protestant/Evangelical goes to the scriptures and precedes to determine things for themselves which has resulted in many different conclusions amongst their own brethren, thus making themselves their own authority above the authority that they claim only resides in Gods Holy Word.
The non-orthodox believer is doing just that though. They are reading the scriptures and say a particular passage means this or that, so are you really trying to maintain that is not actually what is happening? Otherwise at this point in Christianity we would all be seeing the scriptures in the same manner.If a Christian considers himself "their own authority", then they're just as wrong as the Catholic who says the pope and the Magisterium is their authorty.
So, your objection is that we understand what we read.The non-orthodox believer is doing just that though. They are reading the scriptures and say a particular passage means this or that, so are you really trying to maintain that is not actually what is happening? Otherwise at this point in Christianity we would all be seeing the scriptures in the same manner.
Not in age, but a child of God nonetheless.Are you a child?
Jesus said to love God with all your heart, treat your neighbor as yourself, and obey the Commandments and that about encapsulates His entire message to humanity. In the vain of your question above, why would I need a St. Paul or anyone else to expound upon that simple message?Do you often need a priest to explain simple concepts to you?
That is all fine and good, but sometimes we come to a part that is hard to understand, that needs further explanation and clarification. Hence the Church and the leaders of the church to guide us. Don't you have a Pastor? His job is the same as the priest's job, to guide his flock in spiritual matters.Why shouldn't we be able to read something and understand it?
Oh, OK. I thought you were Catholic or Orthodox. Good to know that's not the case.Not in age, but a child of God nonetheless.
Because, according to you, you cannot read it and know what it means.why would I need a St. Paul or anyone else to expound upon that simple message?
And you can't do that?This all fine and good, but sometimes we come to a part that is hard to understand, that needs further explanation and clarification.
Don't you have a Pastor?
Of course. But in Chistianity, the pastor isn't some egomaniacal idiot who tells us we're too dumb to understand what we read. He actually challenges us to read, study, and understand.
Sorry your priests treat you like infants.
His job is the same as the priest's job, to guide his flock in spiritual matters.
According to scripture, which you say you can't understand, the role of the priest is to make sacrifices on our behalf and represent us before God. That's not what a Christian pastor does.
I am Orthodox, a child of God as all Christians are.Oh, OK. I thought you were Catholic or Orthodox. Good to know that's not the case.
In all seriousness, can we have a respectful conversation as all believers in Christ should be able to have with each other?Because, according to you, you cannot read it and know what it means.
And you can't do that?
Can't be both.I am Orthodox, a child of God as all Christians are.
After the way you started? I doubt it.In all seriousness, can we have a respectful conversation as all believers in Christ should be able to have with each other?
Yes. It's indicative of a serious cognitive disability.No I can't.
You haven't describe very respectful treatment.No they don't, they treat us who make up their flock with respect.
Devote himself to prayer and study of the Word, provide pastoral care, preach the Word of God.Pray brother, tell me what a (your) "Christian" Pastor is supposed to do?
Please tell me what was disrespectful about the following statement?After the way you started? I doubt it.
Not in age, but a child of God nonetheless.Mike McK said:
Are you a child?
Jesus said to love God with all your heart, treat your neighbor as yourself, and obey the Commandments and that about encapsulates His entire message to humanity. In the vain of your question above, why would I need a St. Paul or anyone else to expound upon that simple message?Mike McK said:
Do you often need a priest to explain simple concepts to you?
That is all fine and good, but sometimes we come to a part that is hard to understand, that needs further explanation and clarification. Hence the Church and the leaders of the church to guide us. Don't you have a Pastor? His job is the same as the priest's job, to guide his flock in spiritual matters.Mike McK said:
Why shouldn't we be able to read something and understand it?
"After the way you started? I doubt it". And then this: "Yes. It's indicative of a serious cognitive disability".Interested said:
In all seriousness, can we have a respectful conversation as all believers in Christ should be able to have with each other?
Well, there was the part where you implied that the Biblical teaching of priesthood of the believer leads to a lack of unity, the part where you lied about us putting ourselves above the authority of scripture, etc.Please tell me what was disrespectful about the following statement?
"And the Protestant/Evangelical goes to the scriptures and precedes to determine things for themselves which has resulted in many different conclusions amongst their own brethren, thus making themselves their own authority above the authority that they claim only resides in Gods Holy Word". (Post 120)
Just pointed it out to you.There was no personal attack on you or anyone else in particular.
So, it was gross ignorance, not dishonesty?It was simply a statement as to what I believe the the Protestant/Evangelical does and how they look at the Christian faith.
Actually, my post you quoted as the "initiator" was in response to your post.So we can see that actually you were the initiator of the disrespectful conversation with your first words: "Are you a child" and then claim the following after my question which said
Personal attacks right from the get go and three times no less.
I am!Can't be both.
Dear Zia,It seems that the classic verse is 2 Timothy 3:15-16, "And that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Would you agree?
You can ask about this on the Lutheran board too.I don't know enough about Luther to comment on his position. For example, which councils erred in his opinion? Did he believe any were ecumenical? Ect.
I am hesitant to say that Luther himself would have agreed with this Lutheran declaration, one reason being his attempts to avoid calling authority "authority", or in other words, calling a spade a spade when it came to churchly "authority" in terms of governing and guiding texts and bodies. For example, he cited Church Fathers like Augustine in what most people would normally call an "authoritative" way, while he nonetheless insisted that the Bible was the only "authority."The Lutheran World Federation, in ecumenical dialogues with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, has affirmed all of the first seven councils as ecumenical and authoritative. It teaches:
"Both Orthodox and Lutherans affirm that apostolic authority was exercised in the ecumenical councils of the Church in which the bishops, through illumination and glorification brought about by the Holy Spirit, exercised responsibility. Ecumenical councils are a special gift of God to the Church and are an authoritative inheritance through the ages. Through ecumenical councils the Holy Spirit has led the Church to preserve and transmit the faith once delivered to the saints. They handed on the prophetic and apostolic truth, formulated it against heresies of their time and safeguarded the unity of the churches."
Why do we believe in God, the most Holy Trinity, the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ? Because of a verse written in Scripture? Orthodox Christians believe these things because of the witness of the early Church. What was the witness of the early Church? Of course, first and foremost, their martyrdom. Christians who died for Jesus, the anointed one, in the most horrific ways possible. Second, the apostolic Tradition of the Church. What is apostolic Tradition? St. Irenaeus, an early Bishop born in Smyrna cira 130 A.D., wrote in his famous work Against Heresies, "As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same." It is what is handed down, paradosis in Greek, meaning a handing down or over, a tradition. Tradition comes in two forms as seen in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions (paradosis) which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
I have been curious about forum members views on Sola Scriptura. From my understanding, Sola Scriptura is that the Bible and the Bible alone are all a Christian needs in order to find doctrine, teaching, etc. No other sources than Scripture. This idea comes from Martin Luther. He wrote, ". . . A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it.…Neither the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture. For the sake of Scripture we should reject pope and councils . . ." Of course I understand Martin Luther is writing in protest of the Catholic Church, for he mentions the Pope of Rome, yet, the words, "a simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council." Luther also writes, "I will confidently confess what appears to me to be true, whether it has been asserted by a Catholic or a heretic, whether it has been approved or reproved by a council." It seems to me that he is saying "I am so sure that I have discovered true Christianity in my reading of Scripture that nothing will shake my opinion."
Am I wrong to think this? If sos, what is Sola Scriptura and what is it that I do not understand about it? What does it mean? I open and honestly as an Orthodox Christian ask this question.
We Orthodox, of course, do not believe that the Bible and the Bible alone is sufficient. Orthodox believe that we must have a lens in which to interpret the Sacred Text and that lens is our Liturgical worship, the councils of the Church and writings of the early Fathers of the Church.
It is not my intent to convince others or even to say that the Orthodox Church absolutely right (this is of course what I believe) and everyone else is wrong. This is just the Orthodox perspective.
Thanks,
Dear Doctrines of Grace,Sola Scriptura is about ultimate authority. It doesn't say "the Bible and the Bible alone are all a Christian needs in order to find doctrine, teaching, etc." Why would God appoint elders/bishops in his church in order to teach if "the Bible and the Bible alone are all a Christian needs in order to find doctrine, teaching, etc."? Why would the apostle tell the reader of Hebrews "And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." if "the Bible and the Bible alone are all a Christian needs in order to find doctrine, teaching, etc."
The issue comes down to if one see's a contradiction between what Scripture teaches and what some human authority in the Church says, then Scripture is right and that authority, no matter who it is, is wrong.
One should not use the fathers’ teachings for anything more than to get into Scripture as they did, and then one should remain with Scripture alone.
To be clear, Luther was not just saying that the Bible is the "final authority". He defined it to mean that it's the "only" judge of all teachings. Sola Scriptura.I believe it is fair to say that Roman Catholics teaches that Scripture and the Church's magisterium are equal in authority. Protestants simply said, while not rejecting the importance of other authorities, that the only final authority is Scripture.
This is as an illogical line of reasoning. A person can't logically say, "separately...and also because the fathers say so," because they too receiveded Scripture as the written witness of the preaching or teaching of the Apostles and eye-witnesses, see Irenäus.Based on his explanation, you could use the Fathers to understand the Bible's teaching that Mary was a virgin, and then you could say, "Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so". But you could not say, "Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so, and separately because the angel Gabriel announced it, and also because the Church fathers recorded it." EOs could make the latter statement, because we see both the Bible and extrabiblical Tradition as authorities to evaluate teachings.
Dear Doctrines of Grace,
The way that Luther and the foundational Lutheran documents defined Sola Scriptura, unfortunately it doesn't just mean that the Bible is the highest authority (ie. "Prima Scriptura"), nor just that human authority can't contradict Scripture. As they defined this concept, the Bible is the only judge of all teachings.
“The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9).
I listed all of Luther's and the Foundational Lutheran Confessions' statements that I found on this topic:
How did Luther and foundational Lutheran statements use the term Sola Scriptura?
Greetings. I wish to invite you to post quotations and passages from Luther and foundational Lutheran declarations that use phrases such as "Sola Scriptura," "Bible alone," and "The Old and New Testaments alone." This should be able to provide a good idea of the meaning and use of this phrase. I...forums.carm.org
I don't find Luther specifically claiming that in practice you never need to check other writings for teachings. He does seem to support using the Fathers when he says,
The problem here with Luther's logic is that when you do use bishops, fathers, and other writings to "get into" Scripture, then in reality these authorities are evaluating the meaning of the Bible, and thus in turn, these nonBiblical authorities are indirectly establishing and judging teachings.
If you can't understand what the Bible alone says on a topic, and you go and ask your elder, and he judges what the Bible says for you, then it's not really the Bible alone that is judging the teaching. In reality, it's the Bible and your elder that's making the judgment, because otherwise you wouldn't know what the Bible taught here.
To be clear, Luther was not just saying that the Bible is the "final authority". He defined it to mean that it's the "only" judge of all teachings. Sola Scriptura.
In his explanation, you can use other writings like Fathers, but only to decide what the Bible teaches.
Based on his explanation, you could use the Fathers to understand the Bible's teaching that Mary was a virgin, and then you could say, "Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so". But you could not say, "Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so, and separately because the angel Gabriel announced it, and also because the Church fathers recorded it." EOs could make the latter statement, because we see both the Bible and extrabiblical Tradition as authorities to evaluate teachings.
So one problem is the logical fallacy inherent in Sola Scriptura that when you use Commentaries to decide the Bible, it's only the Bible Alone deciding the teachings. Another issue that Sola Scriptura creates is what do you do when the Bible does not address a teaching? As Luther discussed Sola Scriptura, it would mean that you cannot accept any patristic teaching if it is not in the Bible. Strictly speaking, according to Sola Scriptura, this situation of "nonBiblical topics" should not even arise, because the Formula of Concord, claims that the Bible Alone is the judge of "all" teachings. However, even according to Luther, there were topics that the Bible did not speak about, like the lives and sainthood of extraBiblical saints.
Peace.
Irenaeus received Scripture as the main witness of the Apostles, but not as the only witness, since Irenaeus got information separately from the Bible Alone from Polycarp, from Papias, and thus indirectly from John the apostle.
- Based on his explanation, you could use the Fathers to understand the Bible's teaching that Mary was a virgin, and then you could say, "Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so". But you could not say, "Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so, and separately because the angel Gabriel announced it, and also because the Church fathers recorded it." EOs could make the latter statement, because we see both the Bible and extrabiblical Tradition as authorities to evaluate teachings.
This is as an illogical line of reasoning. A person can't logically say, "separately...and also because the fathers say so," because they too receiveded Scripture as the written witness of the preaching or teaching of the Apostles and eye-witnesses, see Irenäus.
Scripture was the authoritative witness of the Apostles to Irenaeus. It was only after the heretics were refuted by the context of the Scriptures which they abused that they cooked up an unknown or secret Tradition. Then the response of Irenäus was that the Christians had no such tradition.Irenaeus received Scripture as the main witness of the Apostles, but not as the only witness, since Irenaeus got information separately from the Bible Alone from Polycarp, from Papias, and thus indirectly from John the apostle.
Thus is an inappropriate word since the so-called fathers knowledge of Mary being the Virgin was necesaarily downstream from the written Apostolic witness.Thus, we know Mary was a virgin because the Bible says so, and also because the Fathers passed this down in their writings.
The problem was and remains that some people ignorant of the actual tradition tried to give tradition a role that it never had. The person you mention, Luther, never argued against the valid use of tradition with regard to adiaphora or fluff.The problem here is that Luther presented a false EITHER/OR dichotomy.