Why so much emphasis on the Bible?

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
scamandrius said:
Happy Lutheran said:
I’ve never read a Church Father state tradition trumps God’s word. The church fathers clearly defended their positions using Scripture.
I've already told you this 100 times, if not more.  Scripture to the church fathers DOES NOT MEAN ONLY BIBLE.  WILL YOU PLEASE GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL?
You're not going to get anything through his thick skull if you keep trying to pound it in there. ;)
 

scamandrius

Merarches
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
9,377
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Omaha
PeterTheAleut said:
scamandrius said:
Happy Lutheran said:
I’ve never read a Church Father state tradition trumps God’s word. The church fathers clearly defended their positions using Scripture.
I've already told you this 100 times, if not more.  Scripture to the church fathers DOES NOT MEAN ONLY BIBLE.  WILL YOU PLEASE GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL?
You're not going to get anything through his thick skull if you keep trying to pound it in there. ;)
Watch me. ;)
 
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
43
Location
Minnesota eh
No one is going to get through to me until they actually engage what God’s word actually says. Show me a quote from a church father that says their writings trump or are equal to Scripture. The quotes I used from the fathers are very specifically about “Holy Scripture”. Telling me it doesn’t mean what it plainly says without actually engaging the words are utterly unconvincing.

John 20:30-31 - And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

“These are written” is clearly referencing his Gospel, not tradition. See “Not written in THIS book”.  

Galatians 3:26-28 - For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Psalm 119:130 - The entrance of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple

2 Corinthians 11:3 - But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ

If someone could actually show me how these verses don’t mean what they clearly say, it would be appreciated.

“we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.”

St. Gregory of Nyssa

 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Happy Lutheran said:
John 20:30-31 - And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

“These are written” is clearly referencing his Gospel, not tradition. See “Not written in THIS book”.  
So, by your reasoning, we only need the Gospel of John and we can ignore the rest of the scriptures.
 

scamandrius

Merarches
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
9,377
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Omaha
Happy Lutheran said:
John 20:30-31 - And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

“These are written” is clearly referencing his Gospel, not tradition. See “Not written in THIS book”.  
You're set in your ways--I understand that. Fine. You're still wrong.

As Iconodule wittily responded, according to you, we only need the Gospel according to St. John.  Everything else should be eliminated from the canon.  Considering that Luther himself was big on pruning the canon, I'm not surprised that you are too.

"These are written" does not, DOES NOT (again, you're in the "allein" mindset where if the words say this, it obviously means to the exclusion of anything else. That's narrow minded, at best) mean exclusion of the traditions, teachings (whatever you may wish to call them) that were NOT written down in the canon or passed down via oral tradition, which is something you refuse acknowledge.  If something is written, that doesn't make it "correct."  That is a MODERN standard, not the ancient one.  Lutherans have a difficult time with that because they think that words like text, writing, literacy mean the same thing in the ancient context as the modern one.  Believe me, I know; I have first hand experience of that. 

Happy Lutheran, you're not winning anyone over and you're just running your mouth and, frankly, you are starting to sound like one of my 7th graders.  Why are you on this board?
 
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
43
Location
Minnesota eh
Iconodule said:
So, by your reasoning, we only need the Gospel of John and we can ignore the rest of the scriptures.
That is not at all what I implied. John wrote his Gospel so we “may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name”. It’s the believing part so we may have life in Christ that is important. “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God”

Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

scamandrius said:
You're set in your ways--I understand that. Fine. You're still wrong.
Happy Lutheran, you're not winning anyone over and you're just running your mouth and, frankly, you are starting to sound like one of my 7th graders.  Why are you on this board?
Yes, it is clear we will not come to agreement. Your insistence to mock and decline to actually address the verses is not convincing.  I have just posted many Scriptures and church fathers quotes and let them speak for themselves; that is running my mouth according to you. This is the Protestant sub-forum; the topic is about the emphasis on the Bible. If I’m not welcome to give my opinion and/or the people and moderators of this site don’t want me to post here anymore, just let me know. 
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
Happy Lutheran said:
Iconodule said:
So, by your reasoning, we only need the Gospel of John and we can ignore the rest of the scriptures.
That is not at all what I implied. John wrote his Gospel so we “may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name”. It’s the believing part so we may have life in Christ that is important. “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God”

Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

scamandrius said:
You're set in your ways--I understand that. Fine. You're still wrong.
Happy Lutheran, you're not winning anyone over and you're just running your mouth and, frankly, you are starting to sound like one of my 7th graders.  Why are you on this board?
Yes, it is clear we will not come to agreement. Your insistence to mock and decline to actually address the verses is not convincing.  I have just posted many Scriptures and church fathers quotes and let them speak for themselves; that is running my mouth according to you. This is the Protestant sub-forum; the topic is about the emphasis on the Bible. If I’m not welcome to give my opinion and/or the people and moderators of this site don’t want me to post here anymore, just let me know.
In this case, Happy Lutheran, it seems as if your biggest critics are merely talking past you with no real understanding of what you're trying to say. I'm not sure I understand yet what you are trying to say, but it doesn't seem to me that you're using this thread to argue for sola scriptura. The question is why so much emphasis is placed on the Bible. You're citing Fathers who placed a great emphasis on the Bible (a.k.a. Scriptures). What you've cited could just as well be seen as an apologetic for prima scriptura, the primacy of Scripture within Tradition, as an apologetic for sola scriptura. ISTM that scamandrius and Iconodule are merely undermining their own belief in prima scriptura by arguing with you as they have.

The Orthodox do believe in the authority of Tradition, the life of the Holy Spirit within the Church and the life of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, which gave birth to the Scriptures and guided their canonization. But just about everything you've said about how Scripture has the highest authority within Tradition, how Tradition is based on Scripture, and how Tradition cannot contradict Scripture is something we Orthodox can and should say about our own approach to Scripture.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
PeterTheAleut said:
Happy Lutheran said:
Iconodule said:
So, by your reasoning, we only need the Gospel of John and we can ignore the rest of the scriptures.
That is not at all what I implied. John wrote his Gospel so we “may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name”. It’s the believing part so we may have life in Christ that is important. “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God”

Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

scamandrius said:
You're set in your ways--I understand that. Fine. You're still wrong.
Happy Lutheran, you're not winning anyone over and you're just running your mouth and, frankly, you are starting to sound like one of my 7th graders.  Why are you on this board?
Yes, it is clear we will not come to agreement. Your insistence to mock and decline to actually address the verses is not convincing.  I have just posted many Scriptures and church fathers quotes and let them speak for themselves; that is running my mouth according to you. This is the Protestant sub-forum; the topic is about the emphasis on the Bible. If I’m not welcome to give my opinion and/or the people and moderators of this site don’t want me to post here anymore, just let me know.
In this case, Happy Lutheran, it seems as if your biggest critics are merely talking past you with no real understanding of what you're trying to say. I'm not sure I understand yet what you are trying to say, but it doesn't seem to me that you're using this thread to argue for sola scriptura. The question is why so much emphasis is placed on the Bible. You're citing Fathers who placed a great emphasis on the Bible (a.k.a. Scriptures). What you've cited could just as well be seen as an apologetic for prima scriptura, the primacy of Scripture within Tradition, as an apologetic for sola scriptura. ISTM that scamandrius and Iconodule are merely undermining their own belief in prima scriptura by arguing with you as they have.

The Orthodox do believe in the authority of Tradition, the life of the Holy Spirit within the Church and the life of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, which gave birth to the Scriptures and guided their canonization. But just about everything you've said about how Scripture has the highest authority within Tradition, how Tradition is based on Scripture, and how Tradition cannot contradict Scripture is something we Orthodox can and should say about our own approach to Scripture.
I concur with PtA here and I would add that many otherwise earnest Orthodox apologists or polemicists online make it seem as if proof texted Patristic snippets somehow are superior to Scripture. Such an approach often leads many Protestants  to come to the wrong understanding of Holy Tradition.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Happy Lutheran said:
Iconodule said:
So, by your reasoning, we only need the Gospel of John and we can ignore the rest of the scriptures.
That is not at all what I implied.
Your curious interpretation of "these are written" allows for no other implication.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
PeterTheAleut said:
ISTM that scamandrius and Iconodule are merely undermining their own belief in prima scriptura by arguing with you as they have.
I don't recall ever expressing a belief in prima scriptura. The whole division between scripture and tradition is erroneous.
 

scamandrius

Merarches
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
9,377
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Omaha
Iconodule said:
PeterTheAleut said:
ISTM that scamandrius and Iconodule are merely undermining their own belief in prima scriptura by arguing with you as they have.
I don't recall ever expressing a belief in prima scriptura. The whole division between scripture and tradition is erroneous.
Neither was I arguing for such thing.

+1
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
scamandrius said:
Iconodule said:
PeterTheAleut said:
ISTM that scamandrius and Iconodule are merely undermining their own belief in prima scriptura by arguing with you as they have.
I don't recall ever expressing a belief in prima scriptura. The whole division between scripture and tradition is erroneous.
Neither was I arguing for such thing.

+1
Of course not! But you do appear to have misidentified what Happy Lutheran was arguing for, and that was my point.
 
Top