Deacon Ananias Vs. Matt Slick: Sola Scriptura

[Lawrence87]

I would respond by saying that the Apostles not only quote the book of Enoch, which neither Protestants or Orthodox view as canonical, but a pagan Greek writer. It doesn't mean the works they quoted were God-Breathed, it simply points to the fact that they could create an authoritative application from those sources.

But it is at least consistent with the idea that the Apostles were not concerned with a Sola Scriptura application of the extant Scriptures available to them.

Jesus chastises the Pharisees for nullifying the Scriptures for the sake of their tradition. It is demonstrable from the text that the Apostles understood themselves to be writing Scriptures as the Prophets from the Old Testament did.

If this were so, I don't even really see any issue with this conception that the Apostles believed themselves to be writing authoritative Scripture. It doesn't necessarily follow that they intended this Scripture to be the sole source of doctrine, as is evidenced by the quote from 2 Thessalonians

What these traditions are is up to the question, we have the Pauline corpus which should clue us in, but I've noticed that what you believe these traditions referenced were will change depending on which church you attend.

That is a red herring because the point is that tradition is referenced in Scripture alongside the written word. So even if we grant that I happen to be mistaken about the nature of these traditions, it is still the case that the Scriptures themselves refer to tradition as something to be held to, whereas Sola Scriptura asserts that the written word is all that should be held to. In other words it is not something you would expect to find had the Apostles conceived of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura themselves, or in the very least, it is again not inconsistent with the Orthodox understanding of these matters.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

But it is at least consistent with the idea that the Apostles were not concerned with a Sola Scriptura application of the extant Scriptures available to them.

While they had the understanding that the Scriptures are God-Breathed and nothing else is, Sola Scriptura can't really be applied to the Apostles in the same way that it can be applied to everyone else who came after them, I am willing to grant that.

If this were so, I don't even really see any issue with this conception that the Apostles believed themselves to be writing authoritative Scripture.

I am connecting this to your first point, Sola Scriptura doesn't really work when the Apostles are still writing Scripture. But now that they have given us the Scriptures, we have no excuse if we interpret or reinterpret them according to our traditions.

That is a red herring because the point is that tradition is referenced in Scripture alongside the written word. So even if we grant that I happen to be mistaken about the nature of these traditions, it is still the case that the Scriptures themselves refer to tradition as something to be held to,

Sure, but what tradition? The tradition of the Apostles or a tradition that develops centuries later? This is why I don't consider this a red herring. How do you test if a tradition is indeed Apostolic? Wouldn't what the Apostles wrote themselves be the standard for defining Apostolicity?

 

[Lawrence87]

While they had the understanding that the Scriptures are God-Breathed and nothing else is, Sola Scriptura can't really be applied to the Apostles in the same way that it can be applied to everyone else who came after them, I am willing to grant that.


I am connecting this to your first point, Sola Scriptura doesn't really work when the Apostles are still writing Scripture. But now that they have given us the Scriptures, we have no excuse if we interpret or reinterpret them according to our traditions.


Sure, but what tradition? The tradition of the Apostles or a tradition that develops centuries later? This is why I don't consider this a red herring. How do you test if a tradition is indeed Apostolic? Wouldn't what the Apostles wrote themselves be the standard for defining Apostolicity?

I think this idea that you can even interpret Scripture absent any tradition is faulty to begin with. You might reject Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditional interpretations of Scripture, but I would imagine you probably have inherited some kind of interpretative framework from the Protestant tradition. I can't imagine that your interpretation of Scripture was created in a vacuum by yourself completely. Even if it were the case that you don't take any one person's interpretation as entirely authoritative in and of itself, but rather have a piecemeal framework that is comprised of an idea from Pastor A, a concept for such and such a book etc. It still necessitates an involvement of tradition, I don't know if it is possible to escape that.


I guess we should pinpoint something to discuss in regards to tradition for clarity's sake. Lets take for example the tradition about Lazarus who was raised by Christ. The Orthodox church holds that he was persecuted by the Jews for being a powerful witness to Christ, and he fled to Cyprus where he became a Bishop, and it is said that his experience of death led to him having an extremely serious disposition and only ever laughing once after his resurrection, and this was upon seeing someone steal a clay pot at which he remarked 'the clay steals the clay'. The Scriptures of course do not mention anything about this. So is it the case that we just cannot know what happened to Lazarus after he was raised? What would the motivation be for making this story up? For the power and status of the Cypriot church? If so then you encounter some problems. Let's say that there was a power struggle in the Church for who was going to come up on top. It is undoubtedly the case that the Orthodox Church arose on top in the end and became the dominant Church. Now if it is the case that the Church was just making up stuff to give itself authority in the struggle for who gets to dominate, then there is no inherent reason why they wouldn't make up Gospels and Epistles to bolster their claims for authority. Whether you like it or not this dominant Church was the one who defined the canon of Scripture, so if you can't trust them about Lazarus, why trust them about the books they included? You can say 'well the Holy Spirit guided them to preserve the canon' but then why could the Holy Spirit not inspire their traditions? It is an issue to propose that an erroneous Church unerringly preserved the Scriptures, especially if you attribute notions of politics and wishing to dominate and so forth. It ends up undermining everything.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

You might reject Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditional interpretations of Scripture, but I would imagine you probably have inherited some kind of interpretative framework from the Protestant tradition.

I would put it this way: it is impossible to interpret anything without coming into it with presuppositions. But not all presuppositions are equally justifiable.

I can't imagine that your interpretation of Scripture was created in a vacuum by yourself completely. Even if it were the case that you don't take any one person's interpretation as entirely authoritative in and of itself, but rather have a piecemeal framework that is comprised of an idea from Pastor A, a concept for such and such a book etc

Of course not. Any serious Reformed Christian would tell you that they have benefited from commentaries, while recognizing that the commentaries are not the Scriptures. Fundamentally, the Scriptures do have an objective meaning, whether our subjective interpretations line up with it or not.

Lets take for example the tradition about Lazarus who was raised by Christ

I can't respond to this as I haven't read into it, but I will read into it.

Let's say that there was a power struggle in the Church for who was going to come up on top. It is undoubtedly the case that the Orthodox Church arose on top in the end and became the dominant Church. Now if it is the case that the Church was just making up stuff to give itself authority in the struggle for who gets to dominate, then there is no inherent reason why they wouldn't make up Gospels and Epistles to bolster their claims for authority.

One of the greatest evidences for the reliability of the New Testament is how weak the chain of custody on it was. It was so widespread that it would be easy to see if a church was manipulating the text to say what it wanted it to say. If you compare this to the Quran, you will see the contrast.

 

[Lawrence87]

Of course not. Any serious Reformed Christian would tell you that they have benefited from commentaries, while recognizing that the commentaries are not the Scriptures. Fundamentally, the Scriptures do have an objective meaning, whether our subjective interpretations line up with it or not.

But in this instance, I don't think I have come across a fundamental Orthodox doctrine that cannot be justified in Scripture or logically derived from it. You can point to traditions about the lives of the Apostles beyond what is recorded in Scripture, but I don't think any of it has a core impact on fundamental doctrine.

Usually it comes down to things like 'Icons violate the 10 Commandments' but these debates were had and resolved in Ecumenical Councils. And the arguments did not just turn a blind eye to Scripture as though pious Christians did not give due attention and reverence to the Scriptures. The images on the Ark of the Covenant were taken into account, and it was decided that there was more nuance than was accounted for when one just quotes the commandment with no context whatsoever.

And it is undoubtedly true that people can take things, such as "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” to mean that Christ was predicting an immanent Apocalypse, and that this verse proves Christianity false. It is not apparently obvious in itself how this should be interpreted.

Non-Trinitarians can also point to numerous Bible verses in support of their position.

One of the greatest evidences for the reliability of the New Testament is how weak the chain of custody on it was. It was so widespread that it would be easy to see if a church was manipulating the text to say what it wanted it to say. If you compare this to the Quran, you will see the contrast.

Okay but I am talking about pre-distribution. Lets say the Church of Rome wanted to assert its dominance. From the viewpoint that the Church was not beyond making fabrications for the sake of politics or whatnot, one might easily suppose that one Church, or sect or whatever might 'find' a letter from Saint Paul and start to distribute it with the aim of giving credence to their claims of authority. This did undoubtedly happen. But from the viewpoint that the Church was quick to err, and fabricate myths, does it not cast doubt on everything? I know you don't have a position on the aforementioned traditions about Lazarus, but lets say for the sake of argument that someone was arguing for their falsehood. It is essentially proposing that the Church is not beyond fabrication, and if the Church was not beyond such things, then how can one claim that it accurately preserved anything? I am not talking about manipulation of existing texts that were already widely distributed, but fabricating them and then distributing them. If the Church just makes stuff up for its own gain and internal power struggles then why not dismiss it entirely?

I don't deny that there were false texts, there is evidence of this. There is evidence of gnostics among others creating false Gospels to push their own agenda. However my ecclesiology is such that despite there being those who would push a false Gospel, the Church of Christ would be protected and ultimately prevail. Which is why I believe that the Scriptures have authority. But it's not clear to me how this can be argued if one were to propose a Church caught in power struggles, and willingly fabricating traditions and so forth. It seems weird to me to argue for a Church that does this, and at the same time authentically preserves the Scriptures intact and without error.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Usually it comes down to things like 'Icons violate the 10 Commandments' but these debates were had and resolved in Ecumenical Councils. And the arguments did not just turn a blind eye to Scripture as though pious Christians did not give due attention and reverence to the Scriptures. The images on the Ark of the Covenant were taken into account, and it was decided that there was more nuance than was accounted for when one just quotes the commandment with no context whatsoever.

There is a difference between deriving a doctrine from the Bible and reading a doctrine into the Bible. Not all exegesis is equal. If the second commandment didactically forbids the use of images in religious worship, it takes some serious twisting of the text to overthrow the commandment.

And it is undoubtedly true that people can take things, such as "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” to mean that Christ was predicting an immanent Apocalypse, and that this verse proves Christianity false. It is not apparently obvious in itself how this should be interpreted.

Is there anything in the Bible that can tell us what this means or was it not able to be understood until it was defined centuries later by the Church?

Non-Trinitarians can also point to numerous Bible verses in support of their position.

Which verses deny the divinity of Christ and the divinity of the Holy Spirit?

From the viewpoint that the Church was not beyond making fabrications for the sake of politics or whatnot, one might easily suppose that one Church, or sect or whatever might 'find' a letter from Saint Paul and start to distribute it with the aim of giving credence to their claims of authority. This did undoubtedly happen. But from the viewpoint that the Church was quick to err, and fabricate myths, does it not cast doubt on everything?

This is more of a question for you then it is for me. You seem to acknowledge forged letters but you suggest that the Church is not beyond fabrication?

Pre-distribution would refer to the Apostles writing the letters. If you're talking about how churches would copy one letter and send it to the other churches, that would lead us into a discussion of textual criticism. The fact is there are textual variants in the manuscripts. Most are scribal errors but a couple are meaningful variants. We can talk about those but I think that is better suited for a Bible Translation thread than for our purposes here.

However my ecclesiology is such that despite there being those who would push a false Gospel, the Church of Christ would be protected and ultimately prevail. Which is why I believe that the Scriptures have authority.

This is our presuppositional difference. For you, the Church makes the Bible. For me, the Bible makes the Church.

But it's not clear to me how this can be argued if one were to propose a Church caught in power struggles, and willingly fabricating traditions and so forth. It seems weird to me to argue for a Church that does this, and at the same time authentically preserves the Scriptures intact and without error.

It doesn't make sense to argue for a church that you acknowledge to be susceptible to forgeries, false teachers, and so on. It is better to hold to that which the Apostles themselves wrote and hold everything to that original standard. The Church will prevail because God is preserving it through His Word.

 

[Rodion]

Which verses deny the divinity of Christ and the divinity of the Holy Spirit?

The point is that when someone twists the scriptures, we point to the universal belief and interpretation of the Church throughout history as codified by the ecumenical councils that Christ is God, he is also fully man, the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God etc. We don’t believe that the councils were inventing new beliefs, but resolving doctrinal disputes which often included differing interpretations of scripture that were arising.

In the absence of this, it becomes very difficult to combat somebody who twists and obfuscates scripture, even in instances when it appears self-evident in meaning. Because it’s one layman vs another. With an ecclesiology that we are all priests, anyone can start a Church and start spreading whatever version of the Gospel they like and you have to just allow it and try to sell your own church on the religious free market of America.

But this is just going in circles at this point.

 

[Lawrence87]

Is there anything in the Bible that can tell us what this means or was it not able to be understood until it was defined centuries later by the Church?

Its entirely plausible that in the early days of Christianity people understood it to mean that the end was extremely near. I imagine as time progressed it was understood that it has a different meaning, some say that He was directly addressing those who would witness the Transfiguration. But the correct interpretation is not explicit in the text that I can see.

Which verses deny the divinity of Christ and the divinity of the Holy Spirit?

The point is that people will quote verses that say God is one, point to the fact that nowhere does Christ explicitly claim to be God (you and I will both agree that He does so in John, but they don't) they will use things without context and without drawing logical conclusions from what is there (such as with the numerous "I am" statements in John) which is similar to what the "icon break ten commandments" argument does.

This is more of a question for you then it is for me. You seem to acknowledge forged letters but you suggest that the Church is not beyond fabrication?

The true Church did not fabricate things, apostates and heretics who wanted to establish a false authority did.

This is our presuppositional difference. For you, the Church makes the Bible. For me, the Bible makes the Church.

This doesn't make any sense. The church being made is described in the Bible how can we say that the Bible preceeded it?

It doesn't make sense to argue for a church that you acknowledge to be susceptible to forgeries, false teachers, and so on. It is better to hold to that which the Apostles themselves wrote and hold everything to that original standard. The Church will prevail because God is preserving it through His Word.

I don't claim that apostates and heretics don't exist, but I believe that, as the Lord promised they would not prevail against the Church. Thus when it comes to the Scriptures I can attest to their authority because the Church that preserved them has authority and it prevailed over the false teachers.

The issue in the Protestant worldview tends to be the view that pretty quickly the Church fell into error. There is all these notions that by Nicea it had been infected with Roman paganism and all this still. The question becomes, if that is what you propose happened to the body that prevailed over Christendom by Constantine, how can you propose that it was in error substantially over a many things, but then claim that it picked the right books for the NT?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The true Church did not fabricate things, apostates and heretics who wanted to establish a false authority did.

There is a legend that Luke, the disciple of Paul, was an iconographer. There is zero evidence of this in the New Testament. In fact, you can't find any source for such a claim until the 8th century. Should it come as a surprise that the claim was made by someone who was arguing against iconoclasts?

This doesn't make any sense. The church being made is described in the Bible how can we say that the Bible preceeded it?

The Bible, the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, define what the Church is supposed to be. The Church does not have the authority to redefine what the writings of the Prophets and Apostles are, which is the same error that the Jews made.

Thus when it comes to the Scriptures I can attest to their authority because the Church that preserved them has authority and it prevailed over the false teachers.

According to Paul, the Church is built on the Prophets and Apostles with Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone. The authority of the Scriptures supercedes the authority of the Church, just as it superceded the authority of Israel. The Apostles even placed themselves under the authority of the Gospel that they had already preached.

There is all these notions that by Nicea it had been infected with Roman paganism and all this still. The question becomes, if that is what you propose happened to the body that prevailed over Christendom by Constantine, how can you propose that it was in error substantially over a many things, but then claim that it picked the right books for the NT?

I can flip this question around and ask you: if there was no bishop at Nicea that dogmatically believed everything that you as an Eastern Orthodox Christian must believe, then how can they be said to be Eastern Orthodox? As far as the canon, we've already discussed that. Your chain of custody of the Canon does not begin with the Apostles, you are trying to place it's origin centuries later, which is problematic, especially for the Eastern Orthodox Canon.