Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: “Sola” vs. “Solo” Scriptura

[TER]

You may now safely return to your ecclesiastical mumbo-jumbo and gobbledy-gook.

Jesus loves you.

As he does you my friend.

Some of us are nerds when it comes to Jesus Christ.

 

[Eagles' Wings]

Correct.

I don't just state it, I provided the facts that prove it. Throughout the first century no such office existed in Christianity. The title "bishop" was synonymous with the title "presbyter," and always referred to an office that was held by multiple people in a city.

Good to have this clarified.

 

[TER]

Good to have this clarified.

Hi Louise! Nice to see you!

 

[TER]

Good to have this clarified.

But unfortunately this hasn't been completely clarified yet, so please, stay tuned.

 

[osan]

Such is your tradition. Such is the way you traditionally read Genesis 9 and Romans 13. In your tradition murder is repaid with death.
I read those verses differently. Why is my tradition wrong?
Who else besides you maintains your tradition?
Why is this tradition authortative?

This nutshells the basic idiocy of the "great" religions rather neatly. Each claiming to be the one and only actual truth, ready to put to the sword all who say or merely appear to think otherwise.

Put 1000 people of the same "faith" into a room and I guarantee you will have no less than 1001 versions of that faith therein.

It never ceases to amaze me when I watch people argue this pointless nonsense back and forth, over and over again with the same clapped-out talking points, proving nothing, settling nothing, and changing nothing. The root of this stupidity is the hell-bending will to convince another that one is right and the other wrong. Who gives a mouse's shit? Why care? If you really hold to your faith, then you have no need to convince anyone else. The fact that one attempts to, tells me everything I need to know about their non-existent faith, for it is nothing but a passel of vaporous lies to himself (the worse of the sins) and to others (the lesser). When I think on this, my brain wants to turn to mush for the utter incomprehensibility of it. I find things more sensible when listening to a man speak of the grand virtue of eating one's own head.

I don't give a tinker's damn what one chooses to believe. Whatever makes you happy is OK with me. But when one goes clearly out of his way to convince others of the rectitude of his views to the absolute and universal exclusion of all others, I cannot help but wonder what it is really about. The only exceptions to this are those arguments that work at the most basic conceptual levels, e.g. the Cardinal Postulate that asserts all men hold equal claims to life. Even that has to be forwarded with care, respect, and some caveats with respect to its truth value.

These are the brands of arguments and attitudes that have fueled the rise of the atheist/materialist progressive scumbag who has murdered by the hundreds of millions during the twentieth century. Being otherwise intelligent, those filth looked at the history of humankind under the dominion of the "great" churches and they said "fuck that shit", and I do not blame them in the least. Unfortunately, the progressive atheist proved every bit the raving, brachiating lunatic that those running the churches were, and in some ways are far worse. So we trade one set of disease-ridden scum who beat, lie, cheat, steal, rape, and murder their ways through the centuries, with another. Someone please remind me once again the basis upon which we presume the human animal as being intelligent?

Take your faith, hold on to it as you may, and STFU about it. Live righteously as you see fit, but leave others to do the same. The world will be a far better place.

Just another one of my worthless opinions.

 

[Eagles' Wings]

But unfortunately this hasn't been completely clarified yet, so please, stay tuned.

Hi Ter, You must know that I do not subscribe to your way of interpreting the office of leadership in the early Christian churches. I will stay tuned to the truth of history as given by Peter, Paul, Timothy, John. There is no tradition or writings of the ECF to suggest that these holy men were Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, in the way we understand these institutions today.

 

[TER]

Hi Ter, You must know that I do not subscribe to your way of interpreting the office of leadership in the early Christian churches. I will stay tuned to the truth of history as given by Peter, Paul, Timothy, John. There is no tradition or writings of the ECF to suggest that these holy men were Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, in the way we understand these institutions today.

Well, hopefully, as this discussion continues with erowe, it will become clear why I cannot ascribe to your point of view. In the meanwhile, you are certainly welcome to answer the last question I posted for erowe.

 

[erowe1]

Well, not really. You cannot say 'Throughout the first century no such office existed in Christianity.' What you can say is that of the writings we have in the canonized Scriptures which make reference to bishops, the formation of the Church at the time which they are witnessing to had episkopoi within cities, meaning more than one leader within a city. Correct?

Yes. And not only in canonized writings, but also 1 Clement, written in the 90s AD after all the apostles were gone, which shows that as of that time, it was still the case in both Rome and Corinth that the terms bishop and presbyter were synonymous and that there were multiple holders of this office in both cities.

 

[erowe1]

I hope I didn't lose you here, erowe. But perhaps I slowed it down too much and for that I apologize!

You state in your earlier post that the first evidence of a bishop over a city is found in St. Ignatius' writings circa 110 AD. You are correct. This is the first written evidence of it. In fact, it is pretty clear to be the case in his writings from Antioch (which was one of the great centers of the Christian world at the time, with the greatest amount of Christians). In his writings, he mentions and even adresses other Bishops who are in similar form (monarchical).

Correct.

You claim this was only found in Asia Minor. Of course, you have no proof to say that

Yes I do. We have his letter to the Romans, which betrays no knowledge of any monarchical bishop there.

What is your earliest estimation that such a development would have occurred then? Certainly not 110 AD, for it was already established in at least Asia Minor. So, as an educated person, what is your educated guess that this may have developed in the Church?

Actually, yes, I would say that we can narrow it down quite closely to AD 110, since Ignatius's letters indicate that this is an innovation he is still in the process of propping up in the face of resistance. If he could have appealed to church tradition that had been passed on to him by a previous generation of leaders, or better yet, the apostles themselves, then his argument would have benefitted greatly from that. Of course the reason he didn't is because everybody knew that what he was advocating had no such pedigree. He doesn't pretend that it did. Anyone who points to his letters and claims he must be passing on something he had inherited from a previous generation is showing disrespect to this esteemed father by putting words in his mouth, in addition to ignoring the positive evidence we do have from the writings of decades prior to him.

 

[Eagles' Wings]

Well, hopefully, as this discussion continues with erowe, it will become clear why I cannot ascribe to your point of view. In the meanwhile, you are certainly welcome to answer the last question I posted for erowe.

The teaching of the EO on this subject is clear as is the teaching of the RCC. The bottom line is that I believe the holy leaders of the early Christian church were more "catholic" than "Catholic".

 

[TER]

This nutshells the basic idiocy of the "great" religions rather neatly. Each claiming to be the one and only actual truth, ready to put to the sword all who say or merely appear to think otherwise

Did someone almost pull a sword in this thread? I must have missed it. I think this a rather nice discussion we are having.

Put 1000 people of the same "faith" into a room and I guarantee you will have no less than 1001 versions of that faith therein.

That is definitely true. But there will most definitely be groups, sometime large groups who agree not only on a little, but on a hell of a lot. Some of these groups can be very large when you put all of history in perspective. Some would put value on such phenomena.

It never ceases to amaze me when I watch people argue this pointless nonsense back and forth, over and over again with the same clapped-out talking points, proving nothing, settling nothing, and changing nothing.

you couldn't be further from the truth, my friend. To you it may seem to prove nothing or settle nothing or change nothing, but to those who come in faith to the truth and submit themselves to Christ, it changes everything. And those coming to Christ are multiplying in many regions of the world. Even here, in this forum.

The root of this stupidity is the hell-bending will to convince another that one is right and the other wrong. Who gives a mouse's shit? Why care? If you really hold to your faith, then you have no need to convince anyone else.

This is sound advice! Not all are called to be teachers! Some would be better to keep quiet. I should do that more often myself. If one's witnessing is causing people undue grief and breaking hearts and building them more resistance to Christ, then it would be better to keep your faith to yourself and pray for them instead. I sort of run away and do this myself when things get to hot in here. The desire to spread the gospel however is precisely because many do give a mouse's shit about the welfare of their neighbor and their salvation as children of the same God. As brothers in Christ.

I don't give a tinker's damn what one chooses to believe. Whatever makes you happy is OK with me. But when one goes clearly out of his way to convince others of the rectitude of his views to the absolute and universal exclusion of all others, I cannot help but wonder what it is really about.

The Church believes many of the pagan philosophers will be enter into the Kingdom. There are truths to be found in all religions and all philosophies. These are glimmers of the logos of the universe, the shades of the realities of existence and their meanings. The Church does not absolutely or universally excludes all other views, rather, it puts it in the Light of Jesus Christ, the Light and Logos of the World Who the Church believes gives fulfillment, ressurection and life to all of mankind's philosophical formulations and religious beliefs.

The only exceptions to this are those arguments that work at the most basic conceptual levels, e.g. the Cardinal Postulate that asserts all men hold equal claims to life. Even that has to be forwarded with care, respect, and some caveats with respect to its truth value.

These are the brands of arguments and attitudes that have fueled the rise of the atheist/materialist progressive scumbag who has murdered by the hundreds of millions during the twentieth century. Being otherwise intelligent, those filth looked at the history of humankind under the dominion of the "great" churches and they said "fuck that shit", and I do not blame them in the least. Unfortunately, the progressive atheist proved every bit the raving, brachiating lunatic that those running the churches were, and in some ways are far worse. So we trade one set of disease-ridden scum who beat, lie, cheat, steal, rape, and murder their ways through the centuries, with another. Someone please remind me once again the basis upon which we presume the human animal as being intelligent?

Have you been to a museum recently, or heard an orchestra at a concert? Or read a beautiful poem? There are many reasons to say that the human animal is intelligent.

Take your faith, hold on to it as you may, and STFU about it. Live righteously as you see fit, but leave others to do the same. The world will be a far better place.

Agreed. If you are causing people pain, distress, and creating strife and hopelessness that leads to faithlessness, than STFU and leave others alone. If you wish to share them the hope and joy of the precious things, of the greater things, the divine, then may the Lord bless you always on your endeavors and may you live many years.

 

[jmdrake]

Not only fisharmor, but every saint of the the early Church as well.

Your opinion. The Bible says the Saints studied the scriptures themselves to see if what the apostles said was the truth. That's the opposite of what fisharmor states he is doing.

You don't think you use them as authoritative, but you do. Your entire approach to the Scriptures and to ecclesiology comes from these men who you have chosen (or they have been chosen for you) to be your Church Fathers. I do not accept them as such because they have neither apostolic succession either through the grace of ordination nor through the apostolic teachings handed down from the early Church.

I see that you in your eagerness to "correct" me, you misinterpreted what I wrote. I was not listing John Calvin, Martin Luther, and John Wesley as church fathers. I was listing them in addition to the men YOU count as church fathers! So, in trying to "correct" me you denied the very apostolic succession you put so much stock in. Way to go TER! My point, that you missed, is that I think all of these men who put a lot of time into studying God's word are worth reading. But I put none of them in a position of scriptural authority. When I find writings that deviate from what's clearly in the Bible, I go with the Bible.

Saints are fallible. That is why it is the Church expressed through the catholic witness and the affirmation of the laity which determines what is theological opinion and what is the understaning which has been handed down since as far back as possible.

Of course saints are fallible. That's why at the end of the day one needs to go back to the source of truth which is God Himself. "If any man lacks wisdom let him ask of God who gives liberally and holds not back."

Individual interpretation which is apart from the mind and experience of the 2000 year Church and Her saints is much more dangerous, which is why you have tens of thousands of different Protestant denominations.

You keep acting like that's such a bad thing. It isn't. Your own family of churches is not united either. The RCC church is significantly different from the Orthodox church. And there are multiple orthodox churches. The Ethiopian Orthodox church has a different cannon than the Greek Orthodox church. So, who's "right"? If you are born in the RCC church must you stay in the RCC church forever even if you like the Eastern Orthodox church better? If you leave the RCC for the EO, you are "rebelling" against "the church." (Which one?) And you have to use your "own interpretation" to decide which non Protestant church is the "true church." And even within the EO church there are differences so strong that one group will call the other group "heretics." No matter what church you put your "faith" in, at the end of the day you must know God and His word for yourself. And that's exactly what the Bible says.. "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly divining the word of truth."

No, it is different. If my priest begins to preach things that are not orthodox as handed down and defended as being the orthodox and catholic faith, then it is my duty to report him to the Bishop who is the guardian of the faith. This is not a new innovation. This is the design of the Church since the first century. You should read the writings of St. Ignatius to gain a better understanding. And it is the Holy Spirit Who has constructed it to be so, working through the Church, and the fruits of this is that to this day there is an unbroken line through the grace of ordination and centered around the Holy Eucharist going all the way back to the first century.

Well good. It's interesting that I've seen Pope Francis say some off the wall things lately and whenever I point that out people slam me for it. Some of them aren't even Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. (I admit I do kind of agree with Pope Francis view of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, but his statements on capitalism are quite worrisome and his statements on atheism and homosexuality curious and slightly odd). I guess what I'm saying is, I see far more following by the laity than I see the laity holding the clergy's feet to the fire. But maybe that will change.

You have a very different understanding of what the Church is compared to either the apostolic Fathers or the average Orthodox today. Our very salvation is tied to being a member of the Body of Christ. There is One Body, One Bride. That is not to say that someone who is not a good baptized Orthodox Christian will not enter into the Kingdom on the Last Day, but rather, that if he does, it will be into this Body that they will be grafted onto by the mercy of God.

Well my Bible tells me to come "Boldly before the throne of grace" and that there is "One mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." Salvation comes through Christ. The purpose of the church is to connect the sinner to Christ and to encourage Christians to do good works. The idea that the church is the destination, as opposed to the vehicle to reach it, wasn't in the New Testament. Maybe it's in the writings of the church fathers.

Yes, we trust God can give us the Holy Spirit on a personal level, but our salvation will not only be a personal event but an ecclesiological event, as members of His Church.

I'm not even sure what you mean by that. There are people in every church who will be saved and people in every church who will be lost.

These are this teachings of the Orthodox Church as handed down since the days of the Apostles. It is the faith we have been given, the faith which has been followed, the faith which has been defended and passed on in every generation. The comfort fisharmor and every Orthodox Christian has is that there is a concrete and historical proof to the claims of the Orthodox Church, thus our surety does not depend on our mere minds and experiences, but the mind and experience of 2000 years of Saints.

And the RCC Christians? Oh yeah, differences are only important to point out among the Protestants.

We do not ignore verses from the Scriptures or centuries of events. We submit to God's plan and working of this plan through and in time. Humilty would have it no way. The way of personal interpretation while ignoring what has been revealed and defended by men and women going back to the beginning is the way of pride and false self-assurance. Entering the Kingdom requires the humility of a child. Likewise, with entering His Church. We do not pretend to know the faith better than say a St. Ignatius, but our hope is that through the same Holy Spirit Who guided him, we might enter into this communion in one faith, one mind, one spirit, and one body. I have absolutely no problems submitting myself to the authority of those men and women who have been filled with the Holy Spirit. It is an honor for me to worship around the same Eucharist and same worship as one Church.

And I'm glad that makes you happy.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Actually, yes, I would say that we can narrow it down quite closely to AD 110, since Ignatius's letters indicate that this is an innovation he is still in the process of propping up in the face of resistance. If he could have appealed to church tradition that had been passed on to him by a previous generation of leaders, or better yet, the apostles themselves, then his argument would have benefitted greatly from that. Of course the reason he didn't is because everybody knew that what he was advocating had no such pedigree. He doesn't pretend that it did. Anyone who points to his letters and claims he must be passing on something he had inherited from a previous generation is showing disrespect to this esteemed father by putting words in his mouth, in addition to ignoring the positive evidence we do have from the writings of decades prior to him.

Erowe,

I am blessed to have you here. Learn something from you in almost every post.

 

[TER]

Anyone who points to his letters and claims he must be passing on something he had inherited from a previous generation is showing disrespect to this esteemed father by putting words in his mouth, in addition to ignoring the positive evidence we do have from the writings of decades prior to him.

I am showing disrespect to St. Ignatius the Godbearer? The man who my Church has a feast day to commemorate and who have named church buildings after? The man who was a friend of the Apostles? Who broke bread with them? Who communed the Eucharist with them? Who was leader of the largest and most powerful church at the end of the first century? The one who his followers gathered up his half eaten remains and venerated and built an altar upon? Am I doing such a thing as disrespecting him?

Forgive me if I have, and may the Lord forgive me. But I think the one who is showing disrespect between me and you is you, frankly.

Let us approach your answer and ignore the added commentary which was more speculative rather than conclusive proof.

How do you envision St. Ignatius the third Bishop of Antioch gained his sole power over the entire Church in Antioch and was the spiritual leader of the baptized Christians there in the year 110 AD, keeping in mind some of these Christians were already born and live when Christ walked the earth?

BTW, according to the Church, St. Ignatius became the third Bishop of Antioch in the late 60's AD. But I am giving your conservative view that he did not become this until the year 110 AD.

 

[TER]

Erowe,

I am blessed to have you here. Learn something from you in almost every post.

Just be a little careful here, Sola. Erowe makes statements which are speculation and calls it conclusive proof. Please stay tuned. This will hopefully be made clear very soon.

 

[TER]

Jmdrake, I will respond to your post when I can, later. I want to finish my current discussion with erowe first if you don't mind. Thanks for understanding.

 

[Eagles' Wings]

Just be a little careful here, Sola. Erowe makes statements which are speculation and calls it conclusive proof. Please stay tuned. This will hopefully be made clear very soon.

This is funny, Ter, and, just a bit condescending. Of course, all that you say is without speculation and/or falsehood. I'm quite sure we can think for ourselves.

 

[TER]

This is funny, Ter, and, just a bit condescending. Of course, all that you say is without speculation and/or falsehood. I'm quite sure we can think for ourselves.

Thank you for your thoughts, Louise. Would you like to offer any information on the topic at hand regarding St. Ignatius and the development of the monarchical episcopy in the first generation of Christianity?

 

[Eagles' Wings]

Thank you for your thoughts, Louise. Would you like to offer any information on the topic at hand regarding St. Ignatius and the development of the monarchical episcopy in the first generation of Christianity?

Ignatius was a holy, holy leader in the early Christian church. He gave his life as a martyr, telling all who would listen who Christ truly is, according to the writings of the apostles. I spent over a year studying his ways of prayer and dedication to Christ. I would have loved to have known Ignatius.

 

[TER]

Ignatius was a holy, holy leader in the early Christian church. He gave his life as a martyr, telling all who would listen who Christ truly is, according to the writings of the apostles. I spent over a year studying his ways of prayer and dedication to Christ. I would have loved to have known Ignatius.

In the Church, we know him very well.

In fact, we pray with him every Divine Liturgy.