Clarifying sola Scriptura

For those deep thinkers out there.

Moderator: tuttle

Post Reply
User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18457
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:30 am

+JMJ+
coco wrote:Perhaps you should re-read Basil without Holy Tradition glasses on. But that is rather difficult, isn't it? We all have worldviews, given to us by our communities. Without them, we could see nothing. But even with them, we do not see perfectly.
That's the whole problem with SS, in a nutshell. It completely glazes over the transition of the Natural Man to the Supernatural (or Regenerate) Man. It presupposes Christian Identity.

So sure, if one presupposes one's own Christian Identity, then one may end up reaching for the epistemic skepticism card. For just as SS separates the Church into the Invisible Church (the true Church) and the Visible Church (the rough, imperfect analogue), it also separates Doctrine/Dogma into evanescent Invisible Doctrine and its rough and imperfect analogue: Visible Doctrine.

However, those that don't skip over and presuppose Regeneration, those who had to approach their respective communities in order to gain their Christian Identity, could never conceive of interpreting the Scriptures without the glasses of that community which initiated them into Christ/made them Regenerate.

So the real question is not whether the Fathers believed in Sola Scriptura, the real question is whether or not the Fathers believed in Incarno-Sacramentalism (operatively efficacious Sacraments).




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12300
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Post by tuttle » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:46 am

jo533281 wrote:The Fathers and the Orthodox both believe in the primacy of Scripture. I affirm every quote they say about the Divine Scriptures... and I don't hold to sola scriptura.
But primacy is exactly what we're talking about here. (Unless you are giving it a different definition than the fact of being primary, preeminent, or that which is most important.) But it sounds like you're contradicting yourself. To say the Fathers believe in the primacy of Scripture is the exact same thing as saying the Fathers believe in what we now call sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny Tradition, it keeps it in check, accountable. And that's something we see in the Fathers which is why they are quoted.
Image

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
coco
Uniquely Duggish
Uniquely Duggish
Posts: 27550
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Contact:

Post by coco » Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:43 am

jo533281 wrote:
coco wrote:
jo533281 wrote:
coco wrote:
Thoth wrote:
Cleon wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Thoth wrote:
tuttle wrote:I found a great article talking about the myths surrounding sola scriptura and thought, hey that would be a great contribution to the "Clarifying Sola Scritpura" thread!

and then I re-skimmed this whole dang thing :?

I think there are some great meaty chunks of discussion throughout, but it's a bit spoiled by the dead flys in the soup...

So yeah, I'm not posting the article here :lol:
Are you going to post it anywhere?
ok...I'm a pushover. here go

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2 ... scriptura/
I predict that points 5 and 6 are going to cause some heart attacks. :lol:
More like a stroke... :P

Yeah that article left me with more questions than answers... (and the link for more quotes of the fathers supporting sola scriptura... pretty sure they weren't arguing sola scriptura since the canon of scripture did not exist during their lifetime)
Doctrines exist long before the first big discussion about them happens. For example, Christians believed in the deity and humanity of Jesus long before any heretic brought such into question. The formal proceedings with respect to the heretic did not create the doctrine, it just stated what the church had long believed with respect to the Bible. It should not surprise us, then, to see the Fathers state that they placed their full reliance on Scripture. After all, they certainly demonstrated that reliance as they wrote.
:wink:
Thoth wrote:Rather discuss this over a pint and pipe
Next time you and your fiance are in Florida, perhaps.
:D
They demonstrated sola scriptura when they wrote? Have you ever read St. Basil's "On the Holy Spirit" for example? He specifically uses Holy Tradition to defend the Holy Spirit's Godhood. And St. Vincent of Lerins demonstrated it by applying the (now-called) Vicentian Canon? Methinks you need to reread them without your sola scriptura glasses on. Modern Orthodox theologians use the Scriptures as much as the Fathers did, and they don't hold to that particular Reformation doctrine anymore than the Fathers did.

EDIT: Their references to the Fathers are taken out of context. How about they cut and paste more than two lines from a Church Father so that we can see the sum total of what they wrote. I can quote snippets from the Bible that prove Unitarianism is true... provided I ignore the rest of the context and content of the Bible.

Interesting article though. Nothing new from my perspective but informative none-the-less.
Perhaps you should re-read Basil without Holy Tradition glasses on. But that is rather difficult, isn't it? We all have worldviews, given to us by our communities. Without them, we could see nothing. But even with them, we do not see perfectly.

At times, the Fathers took a position that would later be called sola scriptura. At times, they simply did not. One of the difficulties with a Holy Tradition position is figuring out which of the existing positions within the Holy Tradition is the "correct" one.

Oh, and the author of the article provides a link to fuller quotations.
I have read those quotes. They were less than convincing. If they really believed in Sola Scriptura, why would they retain the liturgy, the veneration of the saints/Theotokos, etc?
They were inconsistent. All of us are inconsistent from time, to time. Thus, we need a means by which we can be corrected. Though we did not deserve it, God has given us a means of correction, his Holy Word.
JO#s wrote:By the logic of your second to last paragraph, then coco, I could easily say that the Bible, at times, teaches universalism, or what would later be called as such and, at times, it does not.
You could say that the Fathers taught Universalism at times, and you would be correct. They did. You could also say that well-meaning spiritual communities teach Universalism from time to time, due to worldview blindness, and you would be correct. They do. You could not, however, say that the Bible teaches Universalism. It simply does not. Universalistic readings of Scripture are due to sin in the interpreter and/or his hermeneutical community, the failure to read scripture in submission to the Holy Spirit.
Jo wrote:The Fathers and the Orthodox both believe in the primacy of Scripture. I affirm every quote they say about the Divine Scriptures... and I don't hold to sola scriptura. The problem here, I think, is that any affirmation of the Scriptures as primary is seen as sola for you guys, rather than getting a fuller context by reading a majority of what any particular Father wrote.
If scripture is really primary, it must be used to correct Tradition and us. So, if something or another is to be accepted as true, then our acceptance should not be based in the thing being taught by Tradition, nor should our acceptance be based on personal preference, but only because that thing is taught by scripture.
"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a cob with a forever lucite stem." (Pipverbs 1:1)
"No more signatures that quote other CPS members." - Thunk

User avatar
jo533281
like R2D2, just not as cool
like R2D2, just not as cool
Posts: 3115
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Post by jo533281 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:12 pm

Okay fellas, we are going in circles, I think.

Primary, according to your definition, means one thing. You then deduce by your definition sola sciptura (SS). Primary, by the definition of the EOC and the Church Fathers, means something else. It leads to prima scriptura, an entirely different concept. You say that if I mean primary, I must mean your definition. I think it is obvious that I don't. Even if you don't like my definition of primary (and I yours) I hope we can at least try to understand one another's definition. Wit that:

For an idea of what I mean by Prima Scriptura you can read the following link. It is long (though it seems longer if you add the comments) and for that I apologize. But if you would like an idea of what I mean when I say primary it's a solid start. Given my, or the EO, definition of primacy, the Church Fathers' comments on Scripture make sense and are not shown to be outlandishly inconsistent. They are only inconsistent when you try to force your definition of primacy and the idea of SS on them, rather then letting them speak for themselves.


Here is the link: http://orthodoxbridge.com/contra-sola-s ... rt-2-of-4/

Perhaps we can continue this conversation at another time. For now, we are talking past one another and it is creating confusion.

Also, I think, Tuttle, that I have high-jacked your thread a bit. It does seem to be quite off the OP and for that I apologize. Perhaps I should have moved this discussion elsewhere? If you would like, I would be happy to move it. This, from what I recall, isn't a thread debating SS but clarifying it. My bad.
"This is not facebook, we are not here to boost your self esteem or hang on your every word." -Zed-

"It's all right, Andy! It's just bolognaise!"

Most Likely to Draw Pirates with a Post

User avatar
coco
Uniquely Duggish
Uniquely Duggish
Posts: 27550
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Contact:

Post by coco » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:37 pm

jo533281 wrote:Okay fellas, we are going in circles, I think.

Primary, according to your definition, means one thing. You then deduce by your definition sola sciptura (SS). Primary, by the definition of the EOC and the Church Fathers, means something else. It leads to prima scriptura, an entirely different concept. You say that if I mean primary, I must mean your definition. I think it is obvious that I don't. Even if you don't like my definition of primary (and I yours) I hope we can at least try to understand one another's definition. Wit that:

For an idea of what I mean by Prima Scriptura you can read the following link. It is long (though it seems longer if you add the comments) and for that I apologize. But if you would like an idea of what I mean when I say primary it's a solid start. Given my, or the EO, definition of primacy, the Church Fathers' comments on Scripture make sense and are not shown to be outlandishly inconsistent. They are only inconsistent when you try to force your definition of primacy and the idea of SS on them, rather then letting them speak for themselves.


Here is the link: http://orthodoxbridge.com/contra-sola-s ... rt-2-of-4/

Perhaps we can continue this conversation at another time. For now, we are talking past one another and it is creating confusion.

Also, I think, Tuttle, that I have high-jacked your thread a bit. It does seem to be quite off the OP and for that I apologize. Perhaps I should have moved this discussion elsewhere? If you would like, I would be happy to move it. This, from what I recall, isn't a thread debating SS but clarifying it. My bad.
I would politely suggest that you recommend another source in the future.
"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a cob with a forever lucite stem." (Pipverbs 1:1)
"No more signatures that quote other CPS members." - Thunk

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 33235
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Post by UncleBob » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:48 pm

Whoa! Jo#'s is posting in the Theology Forum.

Assemble the Pirates.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"You guys are weird." - Mrs. FredS

User avatar
Jester
Pastor
Pastor
Posts: 971
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by Jester » Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:43 pm

I read this whole thread today. CPS history is fun.
I smoke a cigar because the body is a temple and the temple needs incense. -Michael Knowles

Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

When chaos manifests itself, what makes you think that anyone tame will be good for anything? -Jordan B. Peterson

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 16268
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by hugodrax » Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:52 pm

Jester wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:43 pm
I read this whole thread today. CPS history is fun.
Some of it is. Some of it can be painful. But in light of the fact most everybody here thinks the other guy is wrong, it's amazing what a Christian community we have. Each of you has prayed for me in difficult times and I will gladly pray for all of you. At the end of the day, I can't say enough about both how grateful I've been and how amazingly Christian the board actually is when we get right down to it.

So keep it up, weirdos. Pipe smoking members of the world's weirdest club, you're all ok by me.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

Post Reply