How can "sola scriptura" be possible?

[BRIANH]

You mean "Irenaeus"? Could you please cite your source (not someone else writing, but from the horses mouth...authentic)...I've done multiple Google and Yahoo word searches for "Ireneaus" "Christ" "lived" "80 years" and have came up with nothing.

In XC
-

He said he lived to be around 50. Not 80.
Its in the Ante Nicene Fathers volume one.
He is known for his interpretive history. Undoubtedly he overstates his case ie Peter and Paul actually founded the church at Rome. Paul wrote them before he had ever been there and Peter according to conflicting traditions arrives in the 50's or early 60's.

 

[BRIANH]

Regarding the red -- I looked high and low when I was doing my comparison a few years ago and you will not find one within Orthodoxy. My ultimate conclusion was after much research on different issues is it would be impossible for them to accomplish. This would require unity of agreement, which frankly they do not have on many issues. You can research many questions and find two different answers, none of which are authoritative. They will say these issues are not important. I basically concluded that "important" is defined by what we can all agree on. Ask an Orthodox if artificial contraception is okay -- you will get two answers. Ask if Mary was sinless -- you will get two answers. Ask if Mary was assumed into heaven -- they will say we believe this but it isn't dogma. Ask if baptism removes the bondage of original sin -- you will get two answers.

Last fall the Russian Orthodox delegation walked out of the Catholic-Orthodox theological talks not over disputes with the Catholics, but with their fellow Orthodox they are in communion with.

Many deep theological questions are answered with "it's mystery" (which I personally find okay) but with a disdain for those who probe more deeply or are challenged to do so by those who question. Although I did find one good article by an Orthodox clergyman who stated that as more Protestants had become interested in Orthodoxy they were having to come up with much better answers than "it's mystery" so perhaps more definitive answers are to come.

But if you're waiting for an "authoritative" body of knowledge that will explain the Orthodox position like the Catholics have in the cathechism -- I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't believe at this point in their existence it is possible for them to do.

thank you for your information and insight

 

[DHK]

You mean "Irenaeus"? Could you please cite your source (not someone else writing, but from the horses mouth...authentic)...I've done multiple Google and Yahoo word searches for "Ireneaus" "Christ" "lived" "80 years" and have came up with nothing.

In XC
-

Perhaps it wasn't quite as long as 80, but it certainly was much longer than what the Bible says. At any rate you can do your own calculations. The quote is found in "Against Heresies" Book II, Chapter 2, Paragraph 5:

[FONT=&quot]For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]has mentioned His years, has expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]beginning to be thirty years old,” when He came to receive baptism); and,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]At 30 he was baptized. Then he embraces his first stage of life which takes him up to forty. His second stage of life takes him up to 50, at which time he begins to decline in his age. He was still alive at the time of Trajan and spoke with the Apostle John.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Here is one calculation you can easily make. Most historians put the birth of Christ at 4 B.C. John wrote the Book of Revelation at 98 A.D. That would make Christ over 100 years old!
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I prefer to go by the Bible. Christ was baptized at the age of 30 and had three years of ministry and then died.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Irenaeus was just plain wrong, and didn't seem to know what he was talking about. He had some other very strange doctrines as well.[/FONT]

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK, quoting Irenaeus:
"For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth
[FONT=&quot]year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]has mentioned His years, has expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]beginning to be thirty years old,” when He came to receive baptism); and,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe?[/FONT] "

GE
Does Irenaeus perhaps speak of John who was still living - not of Jesus? Does Ir. mean Jesus possessed old age while still young He being the eternal Son of God? Even if, it just shows the 'fathers' filter the pure milk of the Word through coal sacks, as Luther said.

 

[DHK]

GE
Does Irenaeus perhaps speak of John who was still living - not of Jesus? Does Ir. mean Jesus possessed old age while still young He being the eternal Son of God? Even if, it just shows the 'fathers' filter the pure milk of the Word through coal sacks, as Luther said.

"John, the disciple of the Lord," seems to be fairly clear as to who he is speaking about. The Apostle John lived right to the end of the first century, the Book of Revelation being written in 98 A.D.
Trajan also is mentioned. Trajan ruled 98 - 117 A.D.
There is no reason for Jesus to make a supernatural appearance to a pagan emperor such as Trajan. He is saying that he was still alive at that time.

[FONT=&quot]And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan

[/FONT]

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Can't Ir. have meant it was John who remained?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Perhaps it wasn't quite as long as 80, but it certainly was much longer than what the Bible says. At any rate you can do your own calculations. The quote is found in "Against Heresies" Book II, Chapter 2, Paragraph 5:

DHK the following link is Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" Book II, Chapter 2, Paragraph 5 and it doesn't match your cut and paste. Is it perhaps a different Chapter and Paragraph?

"Against Heresies" Book II, Chapter 2, Paragraph 5

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

Can't Ir. have meant it was John who remained?

Yes, I see what you mean now. The wording is ambiguous at that point but you may be right.
At any rate Irenaeus does have Christ up to the age of 50, and then "[FONT=&quot]begins to decline towards old age," at which age he still remains a Teacher.
Thus, well past the age of 50 Christ is still a renowned Teacher declining in his old age.

[/FONT]

 

[DHK]

DHK the following link is Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" Book II, Chapter 2, Paragraph 5 and it doesn't match your cut and paste. Is it perhaps a different Chapter and Paragraph?

"Against Heresies" Book II, Chapter 2, Paragraph 5

In XC
-

Your link won't work for me for some reason.

But here is what I did.
I found this in a search:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But Irenaeus was not above a bit of Jesus fictionalising himself:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The Thirty aeons are not typified by the fact that Christ was baptized in his 30th year: He did NOT suffer in the twelfth month after his baptism, but was MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS OLD WHEN HE DIED."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]– Against Heresies, II, 22.[/FONT]

​

Irenaeus tells us that Jesus's public ministry continued at least 10 years, and that JC was seen alive in Asia, with his disciple John and others, up to the time of the Emperor Trajan.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"From the 40th and 50th year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, affirming that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan."[/FONT]

The link is:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/orthodoxy.html(atheistic)

I have all of the ECF writings on my own computer software.
I took the reference given above "Against Heresies, II, 22, and found it myself.

 

[Marcia]

I'll let Matt answer himself, but I'd like to give my .02.

The Eastern Orthodox Church with consists of the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandra, all of which keep the faith of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, all keep the original Creed and use the same Liturgy.

The Roman Catholic Church consists of the Patriarchate of Rome and she too keeps the faith of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, only Rome broke away from the other Patriarchates mentioned above around 1054. Rome uses a slightly different Creed and I'm not sure of their Liturgy. Rome recognizes other Councils that the Eastern Orthodox doesn't.

The "other" Orthodox Churches, you must mean the "Oriental Orthodox". They split around the year 500 over the Church teaching in regard to Christ's Humanity and His Divinity. The Oriental Orthodox recognizes only the First 3 Ecumenical Councils. But some Oriental Churches have recently came back to the Eastern Orthodox Church, especially the ones in Africa.

Then in the 1500's Protestantism is hatched from the egg of Rome.

From there YOU have to decide by doing your own study, reading of Scripture and praying to determine which one is authentic. Christ promised to build a Church, protect the Church and remind the Church of all things until the end of the ages.

Was the Church in complete chaos until the Reformers figured it all out? Were the Oriental Orthodox correct in denying the Churches teaching on Christology? Does the Roman Catholic Church look like the authentic Church in light of Papal claims of infallibility and other doctrines born from Rome. Has the Eastern Orthodox Church kept the faith and preserved the faith since the beginning? Or are the Churches of Christ the NT Church or the Landmark Baptists, are they the NT Church preserved by Christ.

It's questions that no one can answer for you and answers that can't be answered via a Message Board. It took me every part of 4 years to wade through this...but I'm glad I did, that's for sure.

In XC
-

I think as God promised, there was always a remnant of believers, which means the church was never totally in a "mess" even if large parts of it were.

I'm familiar with the different branches and how they happened (to a degree). My point was this: Orthodox people harp on evangelicals having different interpretations but it's also true that the Orthodox churches are not in agreement.

So it comes down to this: what does one trust? God's word or men and their traditions?

The true church is the invisible body of Christ - all believers.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

[/b]
I already did.

Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Why is it so hard to understand?

Really? That's all you got? Lets really take a look at the verses you quote here. Taken in context: "Or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above" So what is the heaven that he's talking about?

[4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

From the context of the verse we see something you have not mentioned. "waters below". So in Context Heaven to earth to waters or Above to middle to below. People were in the practice of bowing to stars and worshiping them (Not a reference to God). Lets see if I can substantiate this claim. Deut 17:

2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly

Bowing to stars the sun or the moon practiced among the heathen. Or bowing to heavenly Bodies not imagies of God but things that God created. God doesn't want us to bow down to created things as if they were God. Look at Duet 4:

so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven

God made man in his likeness (image) is then God sinning by breaking his own law? Of course not! God Forbid! He doesnt want us worshiping the creation rather than the creator. And if you still insist on your point, get rid of family pictures too as quoted in the verse above for those are graven images in the form like man or a woman you may be enticed to worship them! Of course God isn't saying this either. But of course reiterating the same verse not fully in context is not a good support for your postion.

What was I trying to get at with Icons? Well this:

18 Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, 21 so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land that the LORD swore to give your forefathers, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth.

Our lives are to be entirely engaged with God in everything that we do. Icons can do that. They picture the events of the Gospels, the OT the ten commandments. People will ask about them and its an oportunity to witness our children will see them and we will teach them Gods ways. I think this was the essense of what the Iconodules were about.

 

[BRIANH]

I think as God promised, there was always a remnant of believers, which means the church was never totally in a "mess" even if large parts of it were.

I'm familiar with the different branches and how they happened (to a degree). My point was this: Orthodox people harp on evangelicals having different interpretations but it's also true that the Orthodox churches are not in agreement.

So it comes down to this: what does one trust? God's word or men and their traditions?

The true church is the invisible body of Christ - all believers.

I also trust God's word Marcia and we agree on much. That is why I am quite reluctant to describe the church as "the invisible body of Christ" when those words do not actually appear in scripture.
Blessings

 

[DHK]

Really? That's all you got? Lets really take a look at the verses you quote here. Taken in context: "Or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above" So what is the heaven that he's talking about?

I honestly don't know what is so difficult about these verses that people stumble on. They are very simple. An idol is anything that comes between you and God.

In the OT the idols were more on the shelf:
In the NT the idols are more in the "self."

You can think about that for a while.

Here are some examples from the OT.
In Exodus Moses brought Israel out of Egypt. He went up Mount Sinai to receive the Law from the hand of God. When he came back down he saw the Israelites dancing naked around a golden calf made by Aaron himself. Study the text out. The Israelites had not left the worship of Jehovah. They had gotten impatient waiting for Moses and didn't know much about Jehovah. The molten calf they had made was Jehovah or represented him. It was an image or likeness of Jehovah. They danced around it and make a feast unto the LORD or unto Jehovah. This was breaking the commandment:

Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

And it was breaking the following command about bowing down and worshiping it. They had made a graven image in the likeness of God. It was made from the earth beneath. It is not the only time an animal or some other object was used in the worship of Jehovah.

After Gideon was successful in his campaigns, he made an ephod, and Israel worshiped the ephod. The ephod took the place of Jehovah. It took their focus off of the oen and true God.

In the Book of Hosea, Hosea warns Israel about impending judgement about to come from Israel. Why? This time it is become Israel had acted like a prostitute and had gone after other gods, primarily Baal. Their religion had now become syncrestic. They were trying to worship Baal and Jehovah at the same time. Baal was a pagan Canaanite. Their sacrifices to Jehovah were empty and hollow. They were liturgical. There wasn't much meaning. They were void of meaning because their hearts were not right. This time they had made images of other gods. They were bowing down to other gods. They were worshiping other gods. They were still transgressing the commandment. They had made an image, were bowing down before it, and praying before it: whether they called it Baal or Jehovah made no difference. It was still wrong.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

In the heavens: Jeremiah speaks of the "Queen of Heaven," its worship, and condemns it. There is a Queen of Heaven that remains in the RCC to this day and is still worshiped 2,700 years after Jeremiah warned against doing so.

60 years after the death of Christ, John still had to give this warning:

1 John 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Marcia,

"Originally Posted by Marcia

The true church is the invisible body of Christ - all believers."

Amen. Very true. :thumbs:


:godisgood:

 

[Matt Black]

Use a concordance. That is what a person would do using "Scripture only." He would then find the word "testimony" is used often, in fact a multitude of times, much of it referring to the Word of God. Read Psalm 119, where the author often uses the word "testimony" as a synonym for God's Word.

Except that we're not talking about Ps 119; we are talking about Isaiah; for your claim to stand up, you would need to demonstrate the the author(s) of Isaiah intended the word 'testimony' to have the same meaning.

That is not in the Bible is it?

Er...yes it is; see the use of paradoseis above.

I trust the Word of God itself to be right.

Slight correction there: I trust the Word of God Himself ie: Christ to be right.

It bears record of itself. And that is what I mean by proper study. You want to compare it with Tradition and the ECF, both of which have strange ideas. I compare it with what the Bible has to say in other places. The Bible is harmonized without contradiction. There is no need to compare it with others, or hold others at higher esteem than even the Bible as it so seems.

Right...and that's why it works so well....not.

 

[Matt Black]

What about the different traditions of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, other Orthodox churches? Who is right there if it's traditions we should go by? Which one of these churches/groups should we rely on for interpretation?

I think I've already given my answer above but I will restate it: prior to 1054 there was only one Church with one Tradition. That, coupled with Scripture, gives us a sufficient corpus of doctrine upon which to rely.

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, I see what you mean now. The wording is ambiguous at that point but you may be right.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Not only that but one has to bear in mind that Irenaeus, more often than not, in Adversus Haereses, quoting what various Gnostic sects believe, and this should not be mistaken for what he himself thinks.

 

[Goldie]

The Bible states "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth", then it goes on to say in Psalm 119 - "thy law is truth." So God identifies His Word with Truth.

Apart from that, Jesus stated 3x in the NT "it is written". Besides, God's acceptance of the authority of the OT is shown clearly in Matthew 5:17-18.

Then compare it to this:

Matthew 22:29 - "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God". Jesus words to the Pharisees because they put their tradition on par with the Word of God. "You are making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye - Mark 7:13.

Isaiah 8:20 - To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 - ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto ALL good works.

Some people normally justify their attempts at refuting Sola Scripture by stating that the early Church did not have the Bible, but Peter states in 2 Peter 3:15-16 - ... even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[Matt Black]

All of the above I accept. None of the above demonstrates sola Scriptura

 

[BRIANH]

I think I've already given my answer above but I will restate it: prior to 1054 there was only one Church with one Tradition. That, coupled with Scripture, gives us a sufficient corpus of doctrine upon which to rely.

So tell me again..which church has the authentic tradition NOW? I am new