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

erowe1 said:
Can you quote me ever once claiming to be a follower of Sola Scriptura?

It's safe to say that it wasn't a shiny new watch. But, no, it doesn't suck to be honest. I feel no obligation to write into the text something that isn't there. I accept that if it were necessary for Paul to spell it out more specifically the, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he would have. I do know that Timothy was a believer who was already active in ministry before he joined Paul in Acts 16. I also know that Paul says a lot about the Holy Spirit giving spiritual gifts, which are not the same thing as receiving the Holy Spirit himself. I also know that Paul sometimes talks about imparting some spiritual gift (as in Romans 1), where the idea seems to be more vague referring to ministry in general, and given other passages of that epistle can't possibly be talking about transferring the Holy Spirit to them.

It's also perfectly clear that Paul is not talking about Timothy being the bishop of Ephesus, since the pastoral epistles, like every other book in the New Testament, use the terms bishop and presbyter interchangeably, and refer to there being a multitude of holders of this office in Ephesus.

You keep claiming that everything you believe is what the Church teaches, but when pressed on that, you never seem to be able even to show that that's the case.

Doe the Church claim that this passage in 2 Timothy is about Paul transferring the Holy Spirit to Timothy? Can you back up that claim and provide sources?
Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/search?q=Paul+transferring+the+Holy+Spirit+to+Timothy&hl=en&gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=
 
I have done as much as I can with what's presently available to me in searching for early references to Acts 6:6. There aren't very many up through AD 400, and I didn't go beyond that.

It is briefly alluded to in the Ascension of Isaiah and Eusebius's Church History. Neither say anything about transferring the Holy Spirit. The only fairly extensive reference I could find is in Crysostom's homily on that passage, which you can read here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210114.htm

He also makes no mention of any transference of the Holy Spirit in that incident.

I can't say for sure that no church father ever might have taught that the laying on of hands in Acts 6 involved a transference of the Holy Spirit. After all, all the Church fathers had their own minds and differed from one another on any given idea all the time. But I can say for sure that this idea that they all uniformly viewed all instances of laying on hands as transferrals of the Holy Spirit, particularly the one in Acts 6, is bunk.
 
Last edited:
jmdrake said:
I'm a programmer too. One thing to note is that just because you found a bug in one program doesn't mean a similar or worse bug isn't in another program. Sorry that you had a bad experience in your Lutheran church.
Click to expand...
Back that up, jmdrake: it wasn't a problem with my Lutheran church. Nobody in this conversation should assume I was the target of the bad experience (I was not), nor that I did not take it to levels above the congregation (I did, in a team along with others), nor that it was a minor matter (it was over an excommunication done for reasons which were never openly stated, even to those who were excommunicated), nor that I was not actually defending Sola Scriptura at the time (I was).

I did not leave because one Lutheran church did something horrible. I am well familiar with the fact that individual congregations do horrible things on a regular basis.
I left because when I took this to higher levels, I got told by the higher levels exactly what we are telling you is the primary problem with Sola Scriptura: Every congregation is free to work out their own issues, because ultimately there is no authority to judge anything they are doing.

If that means that individual congregations are going to have clown communion, or give the Eucharist to dogs, then that's A-OK.
If that means that individual congregations are going to elect abortion doctors as their president, then that's A-OK.
If that means that individual congregations are going to excommunicate people who speak their minds in meetings, then that's A-OK.

And when someone patiently confronts them with Scripture to point out that these things are abhorrent, they can fall back on the exact thing you guys have done in this thread: Well, everyone has a different interpretation of the Gospel, and I'm sorry yours doesn't line up with ours.

And I would say the same if you had a bad experience in the Eastern Orthodox church.
Click to expand...
And if something truly awful happens to someone in my parish, and if I take it up the chain of command, and I get politely told to go fuck myself again, then I will leave Orthodoxy, too.
But the difference is, Sola Scriptura doesn't ask anything of its adherents. You can be on any particular side of the predestination debate, but the bottom line is, if you're in the Sola Scriptura crowd, then your faith asks precisely nothing of you.
It does not ask you for repentance.
It does not ask you to forgive.
It does not ask you to love.

Oh, of course it pays lip service to all these things, but when the rubber meets the road, it all goes out the window and things get real Earthly and pragmatic, because taking a stand on any of that means putting the Jesus-themed social club in jeopardy.

You can't go from Jesus-themed social club to an organization that takes forgiveness and repentance seriously in the snap of your fingers. If you're not doing it every Sunday, at the very least, then it is quite simply a foreign concept. This is why people get chewed up and spit out of protestant congregations. This is why there are 30,000 protestant denominations and counting.

So yeah, if it happens in my parish, I'll leave. But I have more faith in Orthodoxy than to assume it will happen. Because it is a faith which involves practice, taming of the flesh, taming of the passions, multiple somatic components - it asks us to do something. So I can but assume that when asked to forgive, or to repent, its adherents will react a bit differently than Sola Scriptura Christians, who have been told their whole lives that they are the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong, and that there is no authority over them.

Churches are great resources for Christians. But they are the vehicle, not the destination.
Click to expand...
And as I've already insinuated, vehicles are really only good ideas if they are capable of moving.
 
I also want to see that video, jmdrake, so if you could PM it to me that would be great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TER
Sola_Fide said:
I think it's his church in rejection of the Bible. Can't you see that in the preceding exchange?
Click to expand...

You think wrong. The preceding exchange is about why sola scriptura is wrong, not the Bible. Why haven't you actually learned something about the EOC like I told you to the last time we talked? It seems you're resisting doing basic comparative religion research just so you can blather on for dozens of pages with your opinion and wild speculation.
 
heavenlyboy34 said:
You think wrong. The preceding exchange is about why sola scriptura is wrong, not the Bible. Why haven't you actually learned something about the EOC like I told you to the last time we talked? It seems you're resisting doing basic comparative religion research just so you can blather on for dozens of pages with your opinion and wild speculation.
Click to expand...

In what post did TER show that the Bible taught that the apostles laid hands on bishops to transfer the Holy Spirit to them?

I'll wait for your answer.
 
erowe1 said:
I have done as much as I can with what's presently available to me in searching for early references to Acts 6:6. There aren't very many up through AD 400, and I didn't go beyond that.

It is briefly alluded to in the Ascension of Isaiah and Eusebius's Church History. Neither say anything about transferring the Holy Spirit. The only fairly extensive reference I could find is in Crysostom's homily on that passage, which you can read here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210114.htm

He also makes no mention of any transference of the Holy Spirit in that incident.
Click to expand...

You know, unfortunately, there isn't much written commentary about the Epistles in the early Church history, and Chrysostom is about the earliest Church Father we have of homilies on the writings of St. Paul to the Apostle Timothy. He does, of course, teach the orthodox faith, and for this reason the Church has called him a Saint since the fourth century. He didn't change everybody's mind and start his own Church! He wasn't inventing things against the testimony of the fathers before him!! If he tried that, they would have rejected him like they did with Marcion of Sinope! Or as they did with Montanus! He is a Saint BECAUSE he followed the apostolic Church! You see, it was already known by the Church that sinful and haughty men would invent new doctrines and try to change the traditions and teachings of the Apostles, even the very faith itself! Pride and egoism has always existed, and men have made their own minds to be a god, and place the limits of God according to their own mind's logic and reason.

The Church Fathers don't mention much how evil it is to cheat on someone's wife. They didn't have to. It was already understood. And this is exactly how it was with the laying of hands in the rite of ordination and grace of the Holy Spirit. You hum and haw about lack of evidence, but that is because you pick and choose what is according to the Scriptures and what is not. You don't want to say you are a Sola Scripturist, but you certainly are! (I don't call myself a jackass either, but I can be that way too!)

You choose St. John Chrysostom as an early witness. This is good. Tell me then, do you consider him orthodox? Was he part of the New Testament Church? Or will you use him as a dumb tool to justify your position, picking and and choosing whatever verses you think supports your position while ignoring other ones? Just as you do the Holy Scriptures, which is a sure sign my friend that you are a Sola Scripturist whether you call yourself that or not!

There was no need for St. John Chrysostom to explain something that the catholic Church already understood and was aware of. THAT is how established the tradition of laying of the hands on ordination into the clergy was by the fourth century. The culmination of what we see finding final form in the later first and beginning second century.

But of course, those men didn't get it right. You have a much better idea than them what Christ taught His Apostles. After all, you have a graduate degree and can click on Google!

And then to top it all of, you say there is no mention of the transference of the Holy Spirit!

Well, let the people read the entire verse in case your summation missed anything. You know, that dirty little habit of Sola Scripturists to ignore or belittle verses...

Ver. 6. "Wherefore I put you in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in you by the putting on of my hands."

You see how greatly dispirited and dejected he considers him to be. He almost says, "Think not that I despise you, but be assured that I do not condemn you, nor have I forgotten you. Consider, at any rate, your mother and your grandmother. It is because I know that you have unfeigned faith that I put you in remembrance." For it requires much zeal to stir up the gift of God. As fire requires fuel, so grace requires our alacrity, that it may be ever fervent. "I put you in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, that is in you by the putting on of my hands," that is, the grace of the Spirit, which you have received, for presiding over the Church, for the working of miracles, and for every service. For this grace it is in our power to kindle or to extinguish; wherefore he elsewhere says, "Quench not the Spirit." 1 Thessalonians 5:19 For by sloth and carelessness it is quenched, and by watchfulness and diligence it is kept alive. For it is in you indeed, but do thou render it more vehement, that is, fill it with confidence, with joy and delight. Stand manfully.

Ver. 7. "For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."

That is, we did not receive the Spirit, that we should shrink from exertion, but that we may speak with boldness. For to many He gives a spirit of fear, as we read in the wars of the Kings. "A spirit of fear fell upon them." Exodus 15:16? That is, he infused terror into them. But to you He has given, on the contrary, a spirit of power, and of love toward Himself. This, then, is of grace, and yet not merely of grace, but when we have first performed our own parts. For the Spirit that makes us cry, "Abba, Father," inspires us with love both towards Him, and towards our neighbor, that we may love one another. For love arises from power, and from not fearing. For nothing is so apt to dissolve love as fear, and a suspicion of treachery.​

Thank you bringing up this writing erowe. I truly love reading St. John Chrystostom. Did I ever tell you that I venerated his skull? It was a beautiful spiritual moment. Perhaps one day if we sit down for tea I can tell you about it.
 
Last edited:
TER said:
You know, unfortunately, there isn't much written commentary about the Epistles in the early Church history, and Chrysostom is about the earliest Church Father we have of homilies on the writings of St. Paul to the Apostle Timothy. He does, of course, teach the orthodox faith, and for this reason the Church has called him a Saint since the fourth century. He didn't change everybody's mind and start his own Church! He wasn't inventing things against the testimony of the fathers before him!! If he tried that, they would have rejected him like they did with Marcion of Sinope! Or as they did with Montanus! He is a Saint BECAUSE he followed the apostolic Church! You see, it was already known by the Church that sinful and haughty men would invent new doctrines and try to change the traditions and teachings of the Apostles, even the very faith itself! Pride and egoism has always existed, and men have made their own minds to be a god, and place the limits of God according to their own mind's logic and reason.

The Church Fathers don't mention much how evil it is to cheat on someone's wife. They didn't have to. It was already understood. And this is exactly how it was with the laying of hands in the rite of ordination and grace of the Holy Spirit. You hum and haw about lack of evidence, but that is because you pick and choose what is according to the Scriptures and what is not. You don't want to say you are a Sola Scripturist, but you certainly are! (I don't call myself a jackass either, but I can be that way too!)

You choose St. John Chrysostom as an early witness. This is good. Tell me then, do you consider him orthodox? Was he part of the New Testament Church? Or will you use him as a dumb tool to justify your position, picking and and choosing whatever verses you think supports your position while ignoring other ones? Just as you do the Holy Scriptures, which is a sure sign my friend that you are a Sola Scripturist whether you call yourself that or not!

There was no need for St. John Chrysostom to explain something that the catholic Church already understood and was aware of. THAT is how established the tradition of laying of the hands on ordination into the clergy was by the fourth century. The culmination of what we see finding final form in the later first and beginning second century.

But of course, those men didn't get it right. You have a much better idea than them what Christ taught His Apostles. After all, you have a graduate degree and can click on Google!

And then to top it all of, you say there is no mention of the transference of the Holy Spirit!

Well, let the people read the entire verse in case your summation missed anything. You know, that dirty little habit of Sola Scripturists to ignore or belittle verses...

Ver. 6. "Wherefore I put you in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in you by the putting on of my hands."

You see how greatly dispirited and dejected he considers him to be. He almost says, "Think not that I despise you, but be assured that I do not condemn you, nor have I forgotten you. Consider, at any rate, your mother and your grandmother. It is because I know that you have unfeigned faith that I put you in remembrance." For it requires much zeal to stir up the gift of God. As fire requires fuel, so grace requires our alacrity, that it may be ever fervent. "I put you in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, that is in you by the putting on of my hands," that is, the grace of the Spirit, which you have received, for presiding over the Church, for the working of miracles, and for every service. For this grace it is in our power to kindle or to extinguish; wherefore he elsewhere says, "Quench not the Spirit." 1 Thessalonians 5:19 For by sloth and carelessness it is quenched, and by watchfulness and diligence it is kept alive. For it is in you indeed, but do thou render it more vehement, that is, fill it with confidence, with joy and delight. Stand manfully.

Ver. 7. "For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."

That is, we did not receive the Spirit, that we should shrink from exertion, but that we may speak with boldness. For to many He gives a spirit of fear, as we read in the wars of the Kings. "A spirit of fear fell upon them." Exodus 15:16? That is, he infused terror into them. But to you He has given, on the contrary, a spirit of power, and of love toward Himself. This, then, is of grace, and yet not merely of grace, but when we have first performed our own parts. For the Spirit that makes us cry, "Abba, Father," inspires us with love both towards Him, and towards our neighbor, that we may love one another. For love arises from power, and from not fearing. For nothing is so apt to dissolve love as fear, and a suspicion of treachery.​

Thank you bringing up this writing erowe. I truly love reading St. John Chrystostom. Did I ever tell you that I venerated his skull? It was a beautiful spiritual moment. Perhaps one day if we sit down for tea I can tell you about it.
Click to expand...

I was talking about Acts 6:6, which was the verse that you had insisted I was going against the Church fathers.

But notice that even in the case of Timothy, even in the words you bolded, Chrysostom doesn't claim that the gift Timothy received by the laying on of hands was the Holy Spirit, but rather a grace of the Spirit for certain ministries.

Does this mean that, according to you, he disagreed with the Church?
 
Last edited:
And let us see what else this Church Father (regarded a Saint by every Church which can trace itself back to the Apostles) had to say about Acts 6:6...

"There arose a murmuring," etc. to—"And a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.— There arose murmuring against the Hebrews"— for that description of people seemed to be more honorable— "because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration." Acts 6:1-7

So then there was a daily ministration for the widows. And observe how he calls it a "ministration" (διακονία), and not directly alms: extolling by this at once the doers, and those to whom it was done.

"Were neglected." This did not arise from malice, but perhaps from the carelessness of the multitude. And therefore he brought it forward openly, for this was no small evil. Observe, how even in the beginning the evils came not only from without, but also from within. For you must not look to this only, that it was set to rights, but observe that it was a great evil that it existed.

"Then the twelve," etc. Acts 6:2 Do you observe how outward concerns succeed to inward? They do not act at their own discretion, but plead for themselves to the congregation. So ought it to be done now. "It is not reason," says he, "that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables." First he puts to them the unreasonableness of the thing; that it is not possible for both things to be done with the same attention: just as when they were about to ordain Matthias, they first show the necessity of the thing, that one was deficient, and there must needs be twelve. And so here they showed the necessity; and they did it not sooner, but waited till the murmuring arose; nor, on the other hand, did they suffer this to spread far. And, lo! They leave the decision to them: those who pleased all, those who of all were honestly reputed, them they present: not now twelve, but "seven, full of the Spirit and of wisdom: well reported of" for their conversation. Acts 6:3

Now when Matthias was to be presented, it was said, "Therefore must one of these men which have companied with us all the time" Acts 1:21: but not so here: for the case was not alike. And they do not now put it to the lot; they might indeed themselves have made the election, as moved by the Spirit: but nevertheless, they desire the testimony of the people. The fixing the number, and the ordaining them, and for this kind of business, rested with them: but the choice of the men they make over to the people, that they might not seem to act from favor: just as God also leaves it to Moses to choose as elders those whom he knew. Numbers 11:16

"And of wisdom." For indeed there needs much wisdom in such ministrations. For think not, because he has not the word committed unto him, that such an one has no need of wisdom: he does need it, and much too. "But we," says he, "will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." Acts 6:4

Again they plead for themselves, beginning and ending with this. "Will give ourselves continually," he says. For so it behooved, not just to do the mere acts, or in any chance way, but to be continually doing them. "And the saying," we are told, "pleased the whole multitude." (v. 5, 6.) This too was worthy of their wisdom. All approved of what was said so sensible was it.

"And they chose," it says (again it is the people (αὐτοί) that choose,) "Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the Apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them."

They separated them from the multitude, and it is the people (αὐτοί) that draw them, not the Apostles that lead them. Observe how he avoids all that is superfluous: he does not tell in what way it was done, but that they were ordained (ἐ χειροτονήθησαν) with prayer: for this is the meaning of χειροτονία, (i.e. "putting forth the hand,") or ordination: the hand of the man is laid upon (the person,) but the whole work is of God, and it is His hand which touches the head of the one ordained, if he be duly ordained.​
 
Sola_Fide said:
Do you believe in purgatory, TER?
Click to expand...

Lets look at the 2 selections of verses you linked to above (apparently it was too difficult for you to copy/paste...)

“Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them”.
​
(Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5) [A.D. 392]​

He doesn't teach purgatory, but nice try. He is simply expressing the Apostolic tradition of praying for the dead, which St. Paul did in the New Testament but you ignore/twist that verse as well. ;)


“Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them.

But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf”.
​
(Homilies on Philippians 3:9–10) [A.D. 402]​

And here he is expressing the Apostolic tradition of almsgiving and the eschatological significance of works of good deeds.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Occam's Banana
Christian Zionism @ The Scott Horton Academy
Replies
1
Views
25
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
Yes, the church of Jesus is the extreme right-wing
Replies
15
Views
608
jmdrake
jmdrake
jmdrake
When Jehovah allowed a Molech like child sacrifice
Replies
19
Views
94
jmdrake
jmdrake
PAF
Individualism and Self-Determination in the American Tradition
Replies
1
Views
16
TheTexan
TheTexan
mtr1979
Can women be pastors?
Replies
6
Views
299
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Back
Top