"Orthodox" and I are having a debate that could be roughly characterized as a Sola Scriptura vs. Sola Ecclesia debate (though neither of those terms is in the resolution.)
Should this sort of thing interest you, stop by and read up, here:
Resolved: "It is tradition, look no further" is less workable as applied to the theological content of the Westminster Confession of Faith than "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."
(link to debate blog)
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Sola Ecclesia is not a defensible characterization.
Of course we are going to disagree about some of the characterizations - hence the "roughly."
Your comments hopefully will be clear enough that people won't think you hold to a view you don't!
-Turretinfan
Give us your 30 second spiel on why my position is sola ecclesia.
And where did your knowledge of the canon of scripture come from?
If you say the Holy Spirit, I can say the same about Tradition.
If you say the Church, I accuse you of sola ecclesia.
If you say the Fathers, I accuse you of sola patristics.
If you say from your own knowledge, I accuse you of sola self.
"Give us your 30 second spiel on why my position is sola ecclesia."
The short answer is that you deny the sufficiency of Scripture but assert the sufficiency of the "tradition" of your church.
I think we've already been over the canon issue.
-Turretinfan
Orthodox's latest answer would seem to indicate that Sola Ecclesia is perfectly applicable.
Give us your 30 second spiel on why my position is sola ecclesia.
And where did your knowledge of the canon of scripture come from?
If you say the Holy Spirit, I can say the same about Tradition.
If you say the Church, I accuse you of sola ecclesia.
If you say the Fathers, I accuse you of sola patristics.
If you say from your own knowledge, I accuse you of sola self.
One of your persistent problems is that you make little or no effort to articulate the opposing position correctly.
For starters, Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is infallible, not that it excludes the use of tradition. Tradition is simply a fallible rule with respect to faith and practice. You have been corrected on this more times than I can remember. You're in a debate, Orthodox, it's time for you to own up to this.
In addition, the Five Soli are references to categories of causality in use during the period they were coined.
material cause
formal cause
final cause
efficient cause
instrumental cause
The five categories above correlate to:
sola fide
sola Scriptura
soli deo gloria
sola gratia
solus Christus
So, "Sola Ecclesia" in your case would refer to the category of formal causality - in this case an epistemological category. Since your rule of faith is "Holy Tradition" and you admit this is contained in "the Church" itself - via Scripture, the Fathers, icons, etc., and you admittedly affirm Scripture insofar as its determination by way of this tradition it is wholly appropriate to classify your position as a species of "Sola Ecclesia."
Further, in your own opening remarks, you admitted to an aprioristic filter for what constitutes a rule of faith - namely that it should be "workable." You did so, one cannot help but observe, wtihout consulting Scripture itself. Rather, you simply ruled that Scripture did not support Sola Scriptura, and you made no effort from Scripture to establish that your communion is the one true holy apostolic church. What you did, rather, was begin with a series of assertions about "workability" and then deduce what, based on this, the rule of faith should look like/do. If this comes from your Communion, that would be a classic example of "Sola Ecclesia" would it not?
T: The short answer is that you deny the sufficiency of Scripture but assert the sufficiency of the "tradition" of your church.
O: Then call it sola-tradition, if you like.
But if sola-tradition is the same as sola-ecclesia, then your following of written tradition makes you also sola ecclesia.
G: For starters, Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is infallible, not that it excludes the use of tradition. Tradition is simply a fallible rule with respect to faith and practice. You have been corrected on this more times than I can remember. You're in a debate, Orthodox, it's time for you to own up to this.
O: Nothing to own up to, since I haven't misrepresented anyone. Do you think if you say it enough times it will become true?
G: Since your rule of faith is "Holy Tradition" and you admit this is contained in "the Church" itself - via Scripture, the Fathers, icons, etc., and you admittedly affirm Scripture insofar as its determination by way of this tradition it is wholly appropriate to classify your position as a species of "Sola Ecclesia."
O: Nonsense. If we both affirm scripture, and since the church is not scripture, I can't be sola-church since I affirm something other than the church. This is basic logic folks.
If you say that I am sola-ecclesia because the church tells me what scripture is, then I guess you are sola-whoever-told-you-what-scripture-is-but-won't-admit-to.
G: If this comes from your Communion, that would be a classic example of "Sola Ecclesia" would it not?
O: That a rule of faith ought to be able to tell you the truth? I take this as an axiom, that is as obvious as it comes.
Dear O:
Obviously, I think the debate will more or less speak for itself as to whether the shoe fits or not.
I'm not sure why you would be bothered by the label.
-Turretinfan
One gentlemen commented that the debate seemed "unorganized," but I inadvertently rejected the comment. If the gentleman would care to elaborate, I'd be happy to repost the criticism.
-Turretinfan
Sounds to me like you can't defend the label, but it makes a nice sound bite.
Dear Orthodox,
I'm not sure why you think that a res ipsa locquitur defense is not enough for a qualified "rough" characterization.
Then again, considering that your objection was: "If we both affirm scripture, and since the church is not scripture, I can't be sola-church since I affirm something other than the church," it seems that you simply do not understand the label.
What would be the point of my trying to defend something that I didn't mean?
Besides which, Gene has already (in my view at least) provided an adequate explanation.
-Turretinfan
Post a Comment