How can "sola scriptura" be possible?

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

its not difficult. But you seem to be including a lot of things into it God didn't say. It obviously means heaven of Creation. Not God's dwelling place. I agree with the last sentence entirely!

1 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods [a] who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him."
2 Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." 3 So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."

5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD." 6 So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. [c] Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.

7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.... "Do not be angry, my lord," Aaron answered. "You know how prone these people are to evil. 23 They said to me, 'Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him.' 24 So I told them, 'Whoever has any gold jewelry, take it off.' Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!"

It is clear they weren't worshiping God with the image of the Calf but they made a new god and intended to make gods. Aaron was lying about how it came to be. It mystically apreared out of the flames. However, the queen of heaven issue is a good point which I'll research but does nothing to argue against icons unless its the queen of heaven.

 

[mrtumnus]

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

While there are indeed some differences between the Tradition which is taught, one has to also acknowledge that even after a thousand years of separation the large degree of commonality is quite remarkable.

The question you ask is one that every sincere seeker who concludes that sola-scriptura is a flawed doctrine must then face. My answer -- there is but one apostle who was given the keys to the kingdom, as foreshadowed by the Jewish kingships in the OT. There was but one apostle whose name was actually changed by God, as was Abraham's in order to become the father of many nations, and Israel's to become the father of the Jewish nation. That name given by God to this apostles was "Rock". And upon that "Rock" you will find that church today.

 

[mrtumnus]

its not difficult. But you seem to be including a lot of things into it God didn't say. It obviously means heaven of Creation. Not God's dwelling place. I agree with the last sentence entirely!



It is clear they weren't worshiping God with the image of the Calf but they made a new god and intended to make gods. Aaron was lying about how it came to be. It mystically apreared out of the flames. However, the queen of heaven issue is a good point which I'll research but does nothing to argue against icons unless its the queen of heaven.

If one truly believes that the Jewish kingships are a foreshadowing of Christ then the role of the queen mother is clearly defined in the OT.

To conclude that there is no legitimate queen of heaven because a false "queen of heaven" was worshipped in error makes no sense at all. After all, how many false "gods" were worshipped in error?

 

[BRIANH]

While there are indeed some differences between the Tradition which is taught, one has to also acknowledge that even after a thousand years of separation the large degree of commonality is quite remarkable.

The question you ask is one that every sincere seeker who concludes that sola-scriptura is a flawed doctrine must then face. My answer -- there is but one apostle who was given the keys to the kingdom, as foreshadowed by the Jewish kingships in the OT. There was but one apostle whose name was actually changed by God, as was Abraham's in order to become the father of many nations, and Israel's to become the father of the Jewish nation. That name given by God to this apostles was "Rock". And upon that "Rock" you will find that church today.

And what am I to make of the differing patristic traditions that disagree with that?

 

[mrtumnus]

And what am I to make of the differing patristic traditions that disagree with that?

Disagree with what specifically? That Scripture records that Peter alone received the keys? That he alone has his name changed by God, which in Scripture is a rare and significant event indicating a specific placement in the story of salvation? Or disagree that there is any meaning to be found in such?

As I said, I think your question is one that every sincere seeker who comes to the conclusion that sola-scriptura is flawed must then answer for themselves. Prior to that point, I'm not sure why one would even concern oneself with the question.

 

[Matt Black]

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

None since 1054 passes the Vincentian test of true catholicity referred to by me a few pages back. But there's enough to go on prior to 1054.

 

[BRIANH]

None since 1054 passes the Vincentian test of true catholicity referred to by me a few pages back. But there's enough to go on prior to 1054.

Which present church best represents the church of 1053 and earlier?

 

[Matt Black]

Heh heh! I'm tempted to say the Church of England, but then again I'm biased and it would be incredibly arrogant and Anglo-centric of me to say that. That said, I think that part of Anglican Tradition represented in particular by the likes of Cranmer and his Edwardian Reformation has a lot going for it in terms of linking it to pre-1054 and that is one of the reasons why I am Anglican; there are of course many reasons not to be Anglican IMO eg: Gene Robinson. The Orthodox have a lot going for them in terms of being linked into the Undivided Church, but suffer perhaps from a certain ossification in their Tradition. Catholicism is fine in so far as it is linked to that pre-1054 Tradition but post-that it has unilaterally veered off into quite speculative theology largely prompted by the errors of medieval scholasticism eg: purgatory, indulgences which Luther and Co were right to correct....which brings us to the Lutherans, who have a lot to commend themselves, particularly where they have preserved the historic episcopate/Apostolic Succession.

The basic problem with 1054 is that it created an unbalanced Church - a western, Catholic/Latin half and an eastern, Orthodox half. Each half was shorn of the balancing qualities of the other and drifted away from each other and, to a degree also, from correct doctrine.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Here is a quote from an early bishop of Jerusalem. It seems to discuss some of the discussion on this thread regarding tradition etc.... it is Cyril of Jerusalem

The church is called CAtholic or universal because it has spread throughout the entire world, from one end of the earth to the other. Again, it is called Catholic because it teaches fully and unfailingly all the doctrines which ought to be brought to men's knowledge, whether concerned with visible or invisible things, with the realitites of heaven or the things of earth. another reason for the name Catholic is that the church brings under religious obedience all classes of men, rulers and subjects learned and unlettered. Finally, it deserves the title Catholic because it heals and cures unrestrictedly every type of sin that can be committed in sould or in body, and because it possesses with in iteself every kind of virtue that can be named, whether exercised in actions or in words or in some kind of spiritual charism. It is most aplty called a church, which means an "assembly of those called out," because it "calls out" all men and gathers them together, just as the Lord says in Leviticus: "Assemble all the congregation at the door of the tent of meeting." It is worth noting also that the word "assemble" is used for the first time in the Scriptures at this moment when the Lord apppoints Aaron high priest. so in Deuteronomy God says to oMoses: Assemble the people before me and let them hear my words, so that they may learn to fear me. There is a furhter mention of the assembly in the passage about the tablets of the Law: "and on them were written all the words which the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire, on the day of the assmebly;" it is as though he had said, even more clearely, "on the day when your were caled out by God and gathered together."....Now that the single church which was in Judea has been rejected, the churches of christ are already multiplying thorughout the world.... Of this holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy:" that you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

I thought that might give some context from the past. With regards to church tradition.

 

[Matt Black]

Goodstuff, Thinkingstuff!

 

[Darron Steele]

Which present church best represents the church of 1053 and earlier?

I think Matt Black's cut-off of 1054 is subjective.

There were other splits before 1054, albeit smaller.

I suspect that he chose 1054 because he thinks the predominant views of the main church body agree with his views now. In other words, the choice was made based upon his opinion.

I do not think that if we are going to do "Tradition" based on the cut-off date of a split, we can empirically set a date. No doubt, the smaller groups that were divided from thought they were right and the larger group was not. Of course, given that the Bible prohibits division, I think that whoever initiated the split -- as in the act of splitting itself -- is in the wrong. If we are going to do extrabiblical tradition for an authority, the views of the group that was split from actually have more credibility.

Still, there is no empirical answer to `Which cut-off date on extra-biblical tradition.' I suggest this is good reason to simply go with Scripture -- as it tells us to:

Hi Emily:

My reasons for "Sola Scriptura" are mainly these three:
1) the text of the Bible came from God -- 2 Timothy 3:16 -- but the same cannot be said for opinions of people;

2) 2 Timothy 3:16-7 says that Scripture is given to us "so that the| person who serves God| may be complete, | entirely instructed for all good work.”* Scripture gives us everything we need to know to do as God wants;

3) 1 Corinthians 4:6 told them “learn to observe the precept | `Do not go beyond what is written’” (TCNT|TNIV). ...
...
___
*NBV|ICB|ASV|RVR 1909 “enteramente instruído para toda buena obra” translated.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Looks like Matt’s done a good job explaining. I believe each and every one of us is exactly where God wants us. My first Orthodox catechesis class, the Priest of the parish made it perfectly clear that the Orthodox Church doesn’t have a monopoly on God and that he (the priest) would not like to hear that we’ve been saying that the Orthodox Church is the only Church one can find salvation. The reason is that our class was full of converts from Catholicism and Protestantism of all branches and we were all there for the same reason…seeking the NT Church.

In my case, I finally decided upon the Eastern Orthodox Church. I firmly believed that Christ established a Church (singular), even though the EOC has different Jurisdictions; we are still united by our Creed, our Liturgy and our Councils and Canons.

Christ said he would build His Church, protect His Church and remind His Church of all things, even unto the end of the world. Therefore, I’m convicted that a Church still exists, no Reforming is needed and if other Churches wanted out, then they were free to do so, the Church would continue on.

My proof of the EOC, is history, what the Church has been through and continues to persevere to this day. From Pagan persecutions, to the Crusaders, to Islam, to Communist Russia and Islam continues today to play a major factor today, as many of the EOC’s Patriarchates are still under a heavy Moslem rule. For a Church to even survive the Communist Russian regime is an act of God in itself and was Christ ever true to His word!

That’s my feelings anyway,

In XC
-

 

[Matt Black]

I think Matt Black's cut-off of 1054 is subjective.

Why? Surely it is a matter of historical fact?

There were other splits before 1054, albeit smaller.

Which ones? I mean schism here, as opposed to heresy arising within the Church. The only one I can think of is over Photius in the 9th century, unless you want to throw in the iconoclastic controversy of the 8th, but that was sorted (more or less) by Nicaea II

I suspect that he chose 1054 because he thinks the predominant views of the main church body agree with his views now. In other words, the choice was made based upon his opinion.

Not really! If it was based on my opinion then the Undivided Church would have been much more evangelical with lots of nice cosy house groups where Christians drank tea and coffee and ate nice cookies. But I have to subordinate my preferences to Scripture and Tradition, not the other way around.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Which ones? I mean schism here, as opposed to heresy arising within the Church. The only one I can think of is over Photius in the 9th century, unless you want to throw in the iconoclastic controversy of the 8th, but that was sorted (more or less) by Nicaea II
.

Is this the same Scotius? Or was that much earlier?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Is this the same Scotius? Or was that much earlier?

Actual schisms would be the first around 500 AD that resulted in the Oriental Orthodox; they rejected the dogmatic Christological definitions of the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451.

The second schism would be when scholars date the Great Schism of 1054. Which the Church divided West and East.

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

its not difficult. But you seem to be including a lot of things into it God didn't say. It obviously means heaven of Creation. Not God's dwelling place. I agree with the last sentence entirely!



It is clear they weren't worshiping God with the image of the Calf but they made a new god and intended to make gods. Aaron was lying about how it came to be. It mystically apreared out of the flames. However, the queen of heaven issue is a good point which I'll research but does nothing to argue against icons unless its the queen of heaven.

Is it clear that they weren't worshiping God?

Exodus 32:1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

Exodus 32:4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

Exodus 32:5-6 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD.
6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.

Verse 5 clearly indicates that it was a feast to the LORD or Jehovah that they having. They offered burnt offerings and peace offerings to Jehovah. The molten calf had taken the place of Jehovah. They hadn't forsaken the worship of Jehovah. The calf had replaced Jehovah, or had become an image of Him.

It was a violation of the second and third commandments.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Is it clear that they weren't worshiping God?

Exodus 32:1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

Exodus 32:4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

Exodus 32:5-6 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD.
6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.

Verse 5 clearly indicates that it was a feast to the LORD or Jehovah that they having. They offered burnt offerings and peace offerings to Jehovah. The molten calf had taken the place of Jehovah. They hadn't forsaken the worship of Jehovah. The calf had replaced Jehovah, or had become an image of Him.

It was a violation of the second and third commandments.

Which makes my point they were not worshiping God but gods! The calf did not represent for them YHWH but gods. This is not a referrence to something symbolizing God. And yes it was a violation of the 2nd and 3rd Commandments. gods other than God.

 

[DHK]

Which makes my point they were not worshiping God but gods! The calf did not represent for them YHWH but gods. This is not a referrence to something symbolizing God. And yes it was a violation of the 2nd and 3rd Commandments. gods other than God.

No, it doesn't make your point at all.
At first he said "These be your gods."
But that changed. They worshiped the calf as one god. That is plain to see in the text it you take time to read it. But you are not reading it. You are grasping at straws. It is plain you are not reading it, even as you made the assertion that Aaron did not make the calf, when the text says he did!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, it doesn't make your point at all.
At first he said "These be your gods."
But that changed. They worshiped the calf as one god. That is plain to see in the text it you take time to read it. But you are not reading it. You are grasping at straws. It is plain you are not reading it, even as you made the assertion that Aaron did not make the calf, when the text says he did!

I didn't make that assertion at all! read the post I said he lied. Unfortunately, DHK you're not reading the text. The calf does not represent God. Or YHWH. You're reading that into the text. The text makes it clear that they were making gods other than God and they started with the calf because they didn't know what happened to Moses. That is what the text is saying. You're a good guy I would guess but I'm not reaching at straws I'm reading the text. If you want to support your statement quote a text that supports it. This one doesn't. Your only support from the text is Aaron's statement about making a feast. But that is Lord as in title is it the title that refers to God YHWH or is it a title that refers to status of the god? Any Hebrew scholars here?

 

[DHK]

I didn't make that assertion at all! read the post I said he lied. Unfortunately, DHK you're not reading the text. The calf does not represent God. Or YHWH. You're reading that into the text. The text makes it clear that they were making gods other than God and they started with the calf because they didn't know what happened to Moses. That is what the text is saying. You're a good guy I would guess but I'm not reaching at straws I'm reading the text. If you want to support your statement quote a text that supports it. This one doesn't.

Exodus 32:5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD.
The made a feast to the LORD. the word LORD is the same word as JEHOVAH.
In their minds the calf was Jehovah. the feast that they had was dancing around and worshiping Jehovah (the calf). That is what the text says. The calf represented Jehovah. The feast was unto Jehovah, and unto him they brought their offerings (32:6). This is what happened.