[Lon]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

I've often said on this forum that sola scripture is self defeating because it is not in the Bible.

Paul forgot one thing in his list: scripture is useful for arguing about.

I would change the above to 'solo' scriptura. Orthodox (little o) protestantism also has a stool, it is just that the top of the stool is scripture, hence a disagreement on heirarchy rather than the legs of the stool. It is absolutely true that there are Solo Scriptura non-protestants on this board (they don't even hold to a protestant view). I make a huge distinction between these two.

[bybee]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

I think you have misunderstood him. He meant extra-Biblical.

If I have misunderstood then I apologize.

[mikeymikey]

In the Orthodox Church, Scripture is Scripture, of course, and other writings are not Scripture.
However, Scripture came out of Tradition, and is part of Tradition. It is not seperate from it.
I think some people believe that the Scriptures dropped out of heaven, and were written directly by God's hand, like the Ten Commandments. But The New Testament is a compilation of writings that were in use in the early Orthodox Church. They are not some magical book with all the answers clearly laid out. If it was, then there would be no arguement about interpretation, and there wouldn't be thousands of different protestant groups claiming they understand it better than the others.

Without the handed down Tradition of the Church, there would be no Scriptures. To say that Scripture is all that is important is not rational, and is akin to idolatry of the Bible itself.

[oatmeal]

Originally Posted by bybee

I tried.
In the presence of idiocy and perversity my civility gets side-tracked.

Is it ok if I use that excuse for the times I let my tongue slip?

[oatmeal]

Originally Posted by This Charming Manc

The point is that not that we seek create doctrine out of tradition, we always create doctrine out of scripture.

However scripture often needs it to be interpreted, and that where tradition is useful.

Using the line scripture to define scripture sounds spiritual but in a lot of cases we end up circular arguments about which scripture are used to interpret which scriptures, and we are in fact interpreting by reason alone.

The traditional creeds and orthodox teaching of the church are central in helping us to read scripture in the way to was meant to be read.

I object very strongly when tradition over rides scripture, but it has its place in the way we do theology.

It is clear that we must have knowledge from outside of scripture, if we are to learn scripture at all.

I must learn to read English, which scriptures do not teach, if I am going to read scripture.

In this case, if am reading the KJV, I have to learn that KJV English differs from today's English.

It would be useful to learn the culture of the times and region where the prophets lived.

Most certainly, we must use outside sources to supplement our learning with the goal of greater understanding of scripture.

But only scripture is scripture.

oatmeal

[oatmeal]

Originally Posted by bybee

We cannot contaminate God's Word. That is a blasphemous statement, I'm sure you did not do that intentionally.
We must continually read the Word and grow in the Word as our understanding of the Word unfolds. I comprehend the Word so much more fully now than I did as a child, yet, what I learned as a child provided a foundation upon which to build.

Wow?

People contaminate God's word all the time.

It has been said you can prove just about anything from scripture, whether not scripture actually teaches that or not.

For instance you could say that the Bible says that, "there is no God"

As a matter of fact it does say that.

But the context does not allow that to be that actual meaning of that statement.

Psalms 53:1

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good."

I Timothy 3:16 where a forgery is found in the Stephens Greek.

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

From the Companion Bible, pg.1808

" .. The R.V. prints "He who", and adds in the margin, "Theos rests on no sufficient evidence." The probability is that the original reading was ho (which) with the Syriac and all the Latin versions, to agree with musterion(neutr.) The Greek uncial being O, some scribe added the letter s, making OC (He Who), which he thought made better sense. Later another put another mark in this O, making the ___ [oatmeal does not have the fonts to show the letters accurately] , the contraction for ______, God. This mark in Codex A, in the British Museum, is said by some to be in different ink"

Yes, forgeries like that are evil. They throw off the student from the original intent of scriptures.

There are other passages with forgeries.

Some more difficult to ferret out than others.

oatmeal

[oatmeal]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

I think you have misunderstood him. He meant extra-Biblical.

Thank you,

[mikeymikey]

Originally Posted by oatmeal

Wow?

People contaminate God's word all the time.

It has been said you can prove just about anything from scripture, whether not scripture actually teaches that or not.

For instance you could say that the Bible says that, "there is no God"

As a matter of fact it does say that.

But the context does not allow that to be that actual meaning of that statement.

Psalms 53:1

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good."

I Timothy 3:16 where a forgery is found in the Stephens Greek.

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

From the Companion Bible, pg.1808

" .. The R.V. prints "He who", and adds in the margin, "Theos rests on no sufficient evidence." The probability is that the original reading was ho (which) with the Syriac and all the Latin versions, to agree with musterion(neutr.) The Greek uncial being O, some scribe added the letter s, making OC (He Who), which he thought made better sense. Later another put another mark in this O, making the ___ [oatmeal does not have the fonts to show the letters accurately] , the contraction for ______, God. This mark in Codex A, in the British Museum, is said by some to be in different ink"

Yes, forgeries like that are evil. They throw off the student from the original intent of scriptures.

There are other passages with forgeries.

Some more difficult to ferret out than others.

oatmeal

This is why the Church embraces the interpretations of Scripture from the early Fathers, theologians and saints of the Church, who read and spoke the original language of the Scriptures. There was no issue of translation.

Why would we wish to interpret Scriptures ourselves from scratch when the work's already been done? That is what 'Tradition' is.

[oatmeal]

Originally Posted by mikeymikey

This is why the Church embraces the interpretations of Scripture from the early Fathers, theologians and saints of the Church, who read and spoke the original language of the Scriptures. There was no issue of translation.

Why would we wish to interpret Scriptures ourselves from scratch when the work's already been done? That is what 'Tradition' is.

There is no doubt some traditions that are useful

But Jesus Christ made it absolutely clear that traditions can be very evil in nature.

Matthew 15:1-14

"Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

10And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

13But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

14Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. "

I will heed Jesus Christ's warning regarding traditions.

oatmeal

[This Charming Manc]

Lots of reasons, one is did you see the amount of heresy coming out at that point ?

Tradition doesn't replace good biblical study

Originally Posted by mikeymikey

This is why the Church embraces the interpretations of Scripture from the early Fathers, theologians and saints of the Church, who read and spoke the original language of the Scriptures. There was no issue of translation.

Why would we wish to interpret Scriptures ourselves from scratch when the work's already been done? That is what 'Tradition' is.

[mikeymikey]

Originally Posted by This Charming Manc

Lots of reasons, one is did you see the amount of heresy coming out at that point ?

Tradition doesn't replace good biblical study

It is the result of 'good biblical study' that creates tradition. The Tradition if the Church is based on what is passed down directly from the Apostles and their followers, ascetics and the wise saints of the early church.

Is it better to learn from those who have gone before us, or to simply rely on opening the book and going it alone, thinking we know better than them?

Good biblical study is always encouraged, but surely with guidance from the teachings of the Church Fathers who have already 'worked it out'.

If you were to embark on learning a craft, you would read up on what the Masters of that craft have written about it. You would be foolish to think that you knew better than them.

[mikeymikey]

Originally Posted by oatmeal

There is no doubt some traditions that are useful

But Jesus Christ made it absolutely clear that traditions can be very evil in nature.

Matthew 15:1-14

"Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

10And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

13But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

14Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. "

I will heed Jesus Christ's warning regarding traditions.

oatmeal

Oatmeal,
The reference you use refers to traditions that are of the Old Covenant. We know that Christ superceded the it, and the jewish traditions no longer apply.

Traditions cover all manner of things, from interpretation of Scripture, to worship and daily life. Of course, if the practises of Traditions become more important than the message they are designed to aid, then they are being used by the devil to corrupt. It is a matter of being aware that Tradition is part of the whole picture, and Scripture itself is part of that Tradition, coming out of Tradition.

Traditions can be used to mislead, as can interpretations of Scripture. This is where we need to always be open to the Holy Spirit for guidance.
The Reformation came about because of innovations by the Roman Church, that corrupted Tradition, for secular reasons... money and power.
The unfortunate outcome was that the Protestants threw out the baby with the water. Without the secure and wise foundations that Tradition had provided, they became like boats adrift, and continued to splinter to this day.

[This Charming Manc]

I can't disagree with your words, but I think we would disagree strongly on the level and the way they are interpretated.

In my oprion many early church farthers introduced many doctrinal probelsm into the church, which are deviations from the clear and plain teaching of scripture.

I read early church farthers with interest and hold the historic creeds key to our understanding of our faith.

Howvere they were men with the same ability for falibility as you or I.

Originally Posted by mikeymikey

It is the result of 'good biblical study' that creates tradition. The Tradition if the Church is based on what is passed down directly from the Apostles and their followers, ascetics and the wise saints of the early church.

Is it better to learn from those who have gone before us, or to simply rely on opening the book and going it alone, thinking we know better than them?

Good biblical study is always encouraged, but surely with guidance from the teachings of the Church Fathers who have already 'worked it out'.

If you were to embark on learning a craft, you would read up on what the Masters of that craft have written about it. You would be foolish to think that you knew better than them.

[mikeymikey]

Originally Posted by This Charming Manc

I can't disagree with your words, but I think we would disagree strongly on the level and the way they are interpretated.

In my oprion many early church farthers introduced many doctrinal probelsm into the church, which are deviations from the clear and plain teaching of scripture.

I read early church farthers with interest and hold the historic creeds key to our understanding of our faith.

Howvere they were men with the same ability for falibility as you or I.

Indeed... but you can also then take your point to it's logical conclusion, and say that Scripture is then also falible, as it was also written by falible men, and it was decided that it would become Scripture by falible men.

[oatmeal]

Originally Posted by mikeymikey

Oatmeal,
The reference you use refers to traditions that are of the Old Covenant. We know that Christ superceded the it, and the jewish traditions no longer apply.

Traditions cover all manner of things, from interpretation of Scripture, to worship and daily life. Of course, if the practises of Traditions become more important than the message they are designed to aid, then they are being used by the devil to corrupt. It is a matter of being aware that Tradition is part of the whole picture, and Scripture itself is part of that Tradition, coming out of Tradition.

Traditions can be used to mislead, as can interpretations of Scripture. This is where we need to always be open to the Holy Spirit for guidance.
The Reformation came about because of innovations by the Roman Church, that corrupted Tradition, for secular reasons... money and power.
The unfortunate outcome was that the Protestants threw out the baby with the water. Without the secure and wise foundations that Tradition had provided, they became like boats adrift, and continued to splinter to this day.

If God wants to guide my study of the scriptures, that is His option.

However since God made so much known in the scriptures that I can simply read and learn, I will do my reading.

Ephesians 3:4

Matthew 12:3
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

Matthew 12:5
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Matthew 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Matthew 21:16
And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

Matthew 21:42
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?