Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | jawz | 47953 | ||
Raised in the Anglican church of Australia, but over the last nine years God has been dragging me kicking and screaming into the Orthodox church. I do not subscribe to sola scriptura as the bible itself does not support this notion. The Apostles always taught orally in person and only wrote letters when circumstances did not permit them to travel. Note that they sent others with the letters 'to confirm orally' what they had written. The bible comprises a small, but important part of the traditions passed on to the church by the Apostles. The Apostles did not just give people the gospel, they explained it to them as well, and the Orthodox church has continued to pass on faithfully that which it was taught. |
||||||
2 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Reformer Joe | 47986 | ||
You wrote: "I do not subscribe to sola scriptura as the bible itself does not support this notion." What is identified as "God-breathed" in 2 Timothy 3:16-17? Is anything else but Scripture identified as "God-breathed"? Please demonstrate where the Bible supports something besides the classical Protestant understanding of sola Scriptura. You wrote: "The Apostles always taught orally in person and only wrote letters when circumstances did not permit them to travel." I disagree with this statement. Please demonstrate where the apostles ONLY wrote letters when they could not travel. In any case, how does this conflict with the classical Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura, which holds that the traditions of the apostles are inerrantly inscripturated in the writings of the New Testament and that these writings stand as the sole source of revelation for believers today as well as the sole infallible authority? The fact that the apostles taught orally does not refute sola Scriptura. You wrote: "Note that they sent others with the letters 'to confirm orally' what they had written." Please cite references to show that the role of those who delivered the letters was to "confirm" what the apostles had written. Are you saying that those who had authority given to them directly by Christ himself needed "confirmation" by others? You wrote: "The bible comprises a small, but important part of the traditions passed on to the church by the Apostles." 1. The classical Protestant understanding of sola Scritpura does not deny the value of tradition. I hold to many of the same creeds that the Orthodox church does. However, they are not infallible like Scripture is. Nor are they a source of additional revelation; they comment on and interpret what has already been revealed in Scripture. 2. How do you know what the Orthodox church teaches today (apart from what is clearly revealed in Scripture) is actually tradition passed down from the apostles and not conjecture or something added later? You wrote: "The Apostles did not just give people the gospel, they explained it to them as well, and the Orthodox church has continued to pass on faithfully that which it was taught." The Scriptures do not just give the gospel; they explain it as well. Ever read Romans? Ephesians? The epistles themselves serve as explanation of the ins and outs of the gospel. I also agree that God has entrusted the church as the interpreters of Scripture. However, the church has not been given the task of giving additional revelation or setting itself up as an infallible source of authority apart from the Scripture. And this is precisely where the Orthodox church errs. Eastern Orthodoxy holds a higher view of the fallible church than it does the infallible Scriptures. --Joe! |
||||||
3 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Brian.g | 48092 | ||
joe I'm not trying to be argumentive or turn this into a debate, I would just like to understand your viewpoint. I have always agreed that Scripture is the inspired word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17), but doesn't the Protestant viewpoint completely disregard the truth and wisdom of God, brought to us through the ongoing relationship between God and man through the Holy Spirit? Also, where does the Bible specifically say it is the ONLY source of teaching? 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not say it is the only source of teaching. Last, for many, many years, there was no New Testament. All teaching was based upon traditions of the Apostles. Where in the Bible is it written that the traditional teachings of the Apostles were no longer valid and should not be used in conjunction with the written New Testament, once the written New Testament was compiled. Brian |
||||||
4 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Reformer Joe | 48111 | ||
Brian: "I have always agreed that Scripture is the inspired word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17), but doesn't the Protestant viewpoint completely disregard the truth and wisdom of God, brought to us through the ongoing relationship between God and man through the Holy Spirit?" Not at all, Brian. The classical Protestant understanding is the Augustinian view that all enlightenment that comes to our fallen selves is due to the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit who convicts us of our sin, convinces us of the truth of the gospel, persuades us to embrace Jesus Christ, and empowers us to love God's law and to obey it. I also, as a Protestant, acknowledge an ongoing relationship with God and man (i.e. His church) through the Holy Spirit. He still gifts individuals to be teachers of the word, to exercise that gift within the context of the church. What the classical Protestant tradition holds is that, since the apostolic age, the Holy Spirit primarily works through the written Word. He works in the church through the Scriptures. There is no need for any additional revelation, because the Bible contains everything that God wants us to know about Himself and His ways. Those individuals gifted by the Holy Spirit to be teachers comment upon and explain the message of the Bible to the church. We do not hold teachers to be infallible like Scripture is. Nor do we hold teachers to be a source of additional revelation; the church does not tell us anything new, but rather preserves the truth and explains it. That is why I subscribe to the early church creeds such as the Nicene and Athanasian, as well as the Chalcedonian definition. Everything in those documents is a codification and classification of things that are clearly taught in the Scriptures. For example, the source of the doctrine of the Trinity is the Bible, not the council of Nicaea. The council of Nicaea did not invent the Trinity, but wisely and (I believe) reliably provided a definition of the Trinity which is faithful to the apostolic tradition revealed infallibly in the Scriptures. It is only when the teaching magisterium of the church gradually began to see its own writings to be as authoritative as those of Scripture that we begin to see the problems emerge which gradually led to the need for a Reformation. It is in the Middle Ages when we see the development of most of the Catholic teachings with which Protestants disagree. And, despite the attempts of canon lawyers to try and place the source of these teachings within the apostolic and early-church traditions, Protestants remain unconvinced that their arguments are convincing. You wrote: "Also, where does the Bible specifically say it is the ONLY source of teaching? 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not say it is the only source of teaching." No it doesn't, and many Protestants like myself see other valuable sources of teaching. We, however, hold that the Bible is the only INFALLIBLE source of authority. Other teaching is inerrant only to the extent that it agrees with Scripture. What Paul writes to Timothy is that all Scripture is "theopneustos," which means "God-breathed." That claim is made of nothing else. The church has authority, and the source and basis of that authority is Christ. That is not to say, however, that it is impossible for the church to stray from the teachings of the apostles. In other words, the apostolic traditions are not infallible because they come through the Church; they are infallible because they come from Christ. The true church is the church which adheres to what the apostles taught, not the church which claims that by continuing the offices of the apostles that they maintain the same infallibility. --Joe! |
||||||