Why Sola Scriptura fails

  • Thread starter Thread starter KEP1983
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ConstantineTG said:
As a business analyst in real life, I know that Sola Scriptura fails. If we write a requirement and it results in a two-hour meeting just debating what it means and whether it captures everything we intend to capture, then then another hour-long or so meeting later on to explain to the developers what the requirement means, and then much later on explain to the testers again how the requirements should be tested, you know that a piece of text can always be misinterpreted.
Click to expand...
👍 Amen!
 
Simka said:
Well, OK, if you don’t like what historians document concerning Cyril, let’s consider Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa in the 4th century. He enunciated this principle: “we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."
Click to expand...
U-huh…and why don’t you stop isolating specific quotes which tickle your SS ears and read theiir WORKS in their ENTIRE CONTEXT- Do you comprehend? Do you get it?
 
Nicea325 said:
Again, you are wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong.
Click to expand...
Is this what passes for rational discussion in your area?

If we return for a moment to the earlier citation from Cyril, let me expand on the original quotation, to flesh out the context. Cyril advocates:

And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts".

It is significant in the above passage that Cyril states that catechumens are receiving tradition, and he exhorts them to hold to these traditions – which are sourced in and derived from Scripture.
 
Simka said:
Is this what passes for rational discussion in your area?

If we return for a moment to the earlier citation from Cyril, let me expand on the original quotation, to flesh out the context. Cyril advocates:

And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts".

It is significant in the above passage that Cyril states that catechumens are receiving tradition, and he exhorts them to hold to these traditions – which are sourced in and derived from Scripture.
Click to expand...
Actually Scripture is a part of Tradition.
 
Simka said:
Is this what passes for rational discussion in your area?

If we return for a moment to the earlier citation from Cyril, let me expand on the original quotation, to flesh out the context. Cyril advocates:

And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts".

It is significant in the above passage that Cyril states that catechumens are receiving tradition, and he exhorts them to hold to these traditions – which are sourced in and derived from Scripture.
Click to expand...
Simka:

Seriously-stop. Nothing you quote out-of-context or post will make me believe you. I have scores of church father sources and have studied them in depth for years and what you are trying to present is absurd. Are you trying to convince yourself? Because it most certainly will not work on me. I am all too familiar with the James White’s etc-foolishness!
 
Simka said:
If so, show me – in any of the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian – any appeal to any authority which is not first dependent on Scripture.
Click to expand...
Why are you creating a dichotomy? Scripture is never alone without the whole Christian Tradition, and vice versa. They are not mutually exclusive.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Actually Scripture is a part of Tradition.
Click to expand...
If I understand what you’re saying from the Orthodox perspective then I don’t think Lutherans would have a problem with this.

We would only needed to place scripture above tradition when we found that tradition was being distorted.
 
Simka said:
If so, show me – in any of the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian – any appeal to any authority which is not first dependent on Scripture.
Click to expand...
Oh dear! Sigh! This ground has been covered over and over and over.

My days of dealing with SS fanatics are done! I dealt with the issue from 1997 -2004-I am DONE!
 
ConstantineTG said:
Why are you creating a dichotomy? Scripture is never alone without the whole Christian Tradition, and vice versa. They are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Trust me Constantine-Simka will refuse to acknowledge the long known facts you just stated. Simka’s mind has been corrupted by the false position of SS. It is like an alcoholic who cannot admit his or her addiction.
 
Nicea325 said:
Oh dear! Sigh! This ground has been covered over and over and over. My days of dealing with SS fanatics are done! I dealt with the issue from 1997 -2004-I am DONE!
Click to expand...
I regret I wasn’t here then … it would have been good to read something intellectual in that covered ground. But it probably would not have been as entertaining as “wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong” – unless that was your style then, too.

All I asked for from you was a rational discussion, instead of belligerent bluster. I’m sorry if that’s too much to expect from you.

BTW – you haven’t offered one shred of factual evidence or data to legitimize your insistence that I was wrong … only prejudice.
 
benjohnson said:
If I understand what you’re saying from the Orthodox perspective then I don’t think Lutherans would have a problem with this.

We would only needed to place scripture above tradition when we found that tradition was being distorted.
Click to expand...
You can’t place Scripture above Tradition because if not for Tradition, we won’t have Scripture. Also, they are never at odds with one another. If a belief you have is at odds with Scripture or the greater non-scriptural Tradition, then it is your belief that has the problem, not Scripture or Tradition.
 
The problem I have with Sola Scriptura is that the Scripture itself never once says “Sola Scriptura.”
 
Simka said:
Well, perhaps you’d rather discuss other early Church teachers. The early Church Fathers taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture. Consider Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Barnabus, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras … there is no appeal in any of their writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.
Click to expand...
Cough, cough… Anyone that actually reads Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr and is not Catholic or Orthodox has some serious interpretation issues…

Moving along

🍿
 
ConstantineTG said:
You can’t place Scripture above Tradition because if not for Tradition, we won’t have Scripture. Also, they are never at odds with one another.
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing that Scripture is greater than Tradition. We arguing that Scripture is greater than what we perceive as being invented traditions - paid-for indulgences and papal infallibility for example.

The argument that Lutherans make is that Scripture is an ineffable final check against the claims of those that say they are following Tradition, when they are perhaps not.
If a belief you have is at odds with Scripture or the greater non-scriptural Tradition, then it is your belief that has the problem, not Scripture or Tradition.
Click to expand...
Agreed!
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Anyone that actually reads Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr and is not Catholic or Orthodox has some serious interpretation issues…
Click to expand...
They’re only acting illogical if they view the Catholic or Orthodox as being the only valid continuations of the Church. We Lutherans make a claim for validity. I would hazard to guess that Anglicans make a similar claim.
 
Simka said:
I regret I wasn’t here then … it would have been good to read something intellectual in that covered ground. But it probably would not have been as entertaining as “wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong” – unless that was your style then, too.

All I asked for from you was a rational discussion, instead of belligerent bluster. I’m sorry if that’s too much to expect from you.

BTW – you haven’t offered one shred of factual evidence or data to legitimize your insistence that I was wrong … only prejudice.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I did offer intellectual insight, whether you care to read it or acknowledge it or flat out ignore it makes no difference to me. I do not need to provide a shred of evidence because countless of ECF have said enough and again…NOT ONE ever promotes,advocates, defends, or writes exhaustively on the bogus belief called SS. More important, SS never ever was ecumenically declared a doctrine or principle to be practiced…PERIOD! Equally important, where are the attacks by heretical sects attacking SS as unorthodox belief and yet being defended HEAVILY by ONE ECF as being an orthodox doctrine? NO WHERE-PERIOD!

The mother of all doctrines/principles yet is virtually ignored at ALL ecumenical councils? Open your eyes.
 
benjohnson said:
I’m not arguing that Scripture is greater than Tradition. We arguing that Scripture is greater than what we perceive as being invented traditions - paid-for indulgences and papal infallibility for example.

The argument that Lutherans make is that Scripture is an ineffable final check against the claims of those that say they are following Tradition, when they are perhaps not.

Agreed!
Click to expand...
Okay,but where does Jesus teach everything must be said and taught from Scripture? Case in point: infallibility?
 
Nicea325 said:
Okay,but where does Jesus teach everything must be said and taught from Scripture? Case in point: infallibility?
Click to expand...
We never make that claim. I understand that other’s do and call it Sola Scriptura. They are misguided and have cast out too many good things.

For papal infallibility:
We would point out that Papal Infallibility as understood in modern times is different than the primacy of Peter as practiced by the early church and documented in the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top