"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
13 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
Sola Ecclesia is not a defensible characterization.
ReplyDeleteOf course we are going to disagree about some of the characterizations - hence the "roughly."
ReplyDeleteYour 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.
ReplyDeleteAnd 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."
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGive us your 30 second spiel on why my position is sola ecclesia.
ReplyDeleteAnd 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.
ReplyDeleteO: 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.
ReplyDeleteO: 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:
ReplyDeleteObviously, 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.
ReplyDelete-Turretinfan
Sounds to me like you can't defend the label, but it makes a nice sound bite.
ReplyDeleteDear Orthodox,
ReplyDeleteI'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