As a person coming from a Protestant background, the Scriptures aren’t enough because they lack context that the Holy Traditions of the Orthodox Church provides. The miracle of Jesus healing the blind man by creating eyes from the dirt he spit upon is a miracle that didn’t make sense to me (or others) until I learned it through the Orthodox Church. It seems so obvious but just didn’t make sense to me before because of how Protestant preachers taught it. The Church provides what is lacking in the Protestant community… context. Thank you for this series.
My sister visited Hagia Sophia before it was turned into a mosque and she could still feel the spiritual essence of the church although by now it was treated as a museum. The muslims have tried to hide the iconography of Hagia Sophia but the pictures still seep through the fresh paint along with the holiness of the once great cathedral. Then she went to the vatican and all she felt was coldness. She as an artist could appreciate the architecture but the vatican according to her was souless. How sad for us as Orthodox christians who had Hagia Sophia stolen from us and how sad for our catholic brethren who are lost to the coldness of the vatican. I pray for continued guidance 🙏🇦🇺
Christ is in our midst! Thank you so much for this series, Fr. Truebenbach! I'm a lapsed Catechumen returning and attempting to regain my footing. I really enjoy the way you break down these ideas and concepts! God Be With You!
I've been loving the series, but Sola Scriptura isn't that the Scripture is the only authority ,it's the only infallible authority (I'm not posting to discuss the definition, I'm posting to provide the correct definition, I understand we won't agree on if Sola Scriptura is true). It's also not the only source of truth. Paul himself said nature points to truth, it points to God. People all around the world, have found truth's (even if it's not the full truth) without the scriptures. Many Protestants still have tradition, and accept other rules of authority, but we simply hold the scripture as the only infallible source.
I hear ya... as a reformed protestant we hold to Scripture alone. However, that to me is not very clear, and so, you can make it to whatever you want it to mean. However, I understand why the protestants have it though... ask the Roman Catholic church. During the time of Luther, the Catholic church abused it's power and I'd say that the Catholic church was being tyrannical in a sense. So, if the orthodox church decided to go a little cray-cray, people are going to go to Scripture for truth.
Yes, there is a technical difference between "sola" scriptura (one of the Protestant Reformation's "five solae") and "solo" scriptura, which is what Fr. Paul labels as "sola scriptura." The difference, as you suggest is that sola scriptura considers the scriptures as the sole infallible rule and solo scriptura claims that scriptures are the sole rule of faith, full stop. I say that this is only a technical difference because for all intents and purposes, solo scriptura has eclipsed and subsumed sola scriptura in influence and practice (though the irony is that solo/a scriptura, however you choose it, is itself a tradition). If you doubt this, feel free to research the numbers of the SBC and other Baptist conferences, Pentacostals, Church of Christ (Stone-Campbell movement in which I grew up) and other solo scriptura denominations and allegedly non-denominational churches against those of the mainline churches. The difference between the terms exists, but it is insubstantial in the modern lexicon, similar in nature to the which/that distinction in proper grammar. As someone who grew up in and got an undergraduate degree from a University run by the Stone-Campbell movement (i.e. the "non-denominational" churches of Christ), I heard for decades that, "We will speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent." This is, again, internally inconsistent because it is not itself in the Scriptures, but it is demonstrative of the problem with solo/a scriptura: who defines, a) what scripture/the Bible is; and b) who determines what it means? The fundamental flaw of the Protestant Reformation is that you will know a tree by its fruit, and the fruit of it is the absolute shattering of an otherwise-monolithic Western Church. This fracturing results in myriad problems, including but not limited to what Fr. Paul mentioned here, as well as the absolute erosion of Church discipline (this is one of the greatest reasons I began looking into the Orthodox Church over three years ago, after having heard of Byzantine Rite Catholicism on Matt Fradd's podcast (Pints with Aquinas)). This loss of church discipline is not initially apparent, because local churches can (and do) excommunicate- though they usually call it disfellowshipping to sound less Roman Catholic, in my experience- people, but it loses any bite and all force when the "disciplined" party can drive less than a mile down the road and join into full communion with another part of the "invisible church" without question, problems, or change to his/her life. This always seemed odd to me, and so I began to think about history and read, both history and the Ante-Nicene Fathers (though at first only as if they had a historic value, but St. Justin Martyr and St. John Chrysostom quickly dispelled that idea). Along the lines of thinking historically, I always accepted the creed of the Stone-Campbellites, supra, but when I considered the fact that Luther had removed the so-called Apocrypha from the Roman Church's Bible (and also tried to remove other books that he was, by the Grace of God and influence of contemporaries, prevented from doing so), I realized that the catchy aphorism begs the question of what, exactly, the Bible is. In order to speak where the Bible speaks, and vice versa, one must be able to define what the Bible is and what is in the Bible (which includes what is not in the Bible). But in order to speak where it speaks, then it must define itself, which it does not, and no one can claim it does. The Churches of Christ tries to explain this through using certain criteria, including historicity and apostolic authorship, yet it also largely accepts the idea that Paul maybe didn't write the Epistle to the Hebrews. Not only that, but the Gospels according to Mark and Luke, along with Acts, clearly are not written by Apostles. To be clear, I love the intent behind the Stone-Campbell movement, I just now believe that it falls short in its noble and laudable goals because it eschews history and (at least tacitly) accepts the Great Apostasy Theory, which is facially against the words of Christ, when He said, "I will be with you always, even unto the end of the Age." The problem is that the Biblical canon preexists the movement by hundreds of years, was set by the people who had fallen into the Great Apostasy, and was preserved by the same people (usually explained as the protecting work of the Holy Spirit through the "faithful remnant," but the remnant usually traces its way through heretic sects, none of which include St. Athanasius). Circling back to solo/a scriptura, it is comical to realize that they claim to be, and by technical definition are, different, but are practically the same because the Scriptures can and do not exist apart from a tradition (or Tradition). To deny that (i.e. solo scriptura) requires adhering to a tradition that is unstated and assumed, thus becoming sola scriptura; yet both beg the questions of what Scripture is, from whence it came, and by whom/how it was preserved. I know that this is a TH-cam comment and will not change anyone's mind or convince anyone of anything, so I attempted to explain why the two terms (solo/a scriptura) are functionally the same, yet you are technically correct (which as a lawyer, I will grant is the best kind of correct ;) ) in as few words as possible, yet still ended up being long winded. Thank you to anyone who bothered to waste your time reading my unimaginative and unoriginal, thoroughly unconvincing ramblings. I have come to the frightening and (I believe) inescapable conclusion that, when you consider the fact that Christianity is a historical religion (i.e. that it has existed in the world for the past ~2,000 years) and begin to delve into that history, either Rome or Constantinople, et al, ends up being correct, and Rome is the OG Protestant church, thus leaving Constantinople (not counting the non-Chalcedonian churches). Now I just have to convince the wife. May God grant us all to enter into the fullness of His Truth.
@@BrianBrenon The abuses of Solo Scriptura do not negate that there is a genuine difference between Sola & Solo. Even Augustine said the Plenary Councils can be corrected (On Christian Doctrine 3.16 I believe). Cyril said in his Catechism Lectures (to those not even yet fully in the Church) that they should test everything against Scripture even his words, and that Scripture is above all others. Sola Scriptura acknowledges the validity & use of Tradition, but in line with the Fathers we place it beneath Scripture. I could cite father after father after father on this. I highly recomend a work called "The Shape of Sola Scriptura" on this exact topic. Sola Scriptura doesn't simply collapse on itself. Javier Perdomo (www.youtube . com/@javierperd2604) just did a great video reacting to that claim from Trent Horn I recommend watching.
@@BrianBrenon Also i just want to note, Luther did not remove books from the Bible. And the what Scripture is question, is not a problem for us. On my profile I have a public playlist addressing that in particular. Since I doubt the good Fr. would want us having an extended debate in the comments on his catechism video.
![Lord of Spirits - A Land of Giants [Ep. 7]](/img/n.gif)
Father Truebenbach's humour, energy and humility are infectious! A great teacher!
Oh Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner. ☦️
As a person coming from a Protestant background, the Scriptures aren’t enough because they lack context that the Holy Traditions of the Orthodox Church provides.
The miracle of Jesus healing the blind man by creating eyes from the dirt he spit upon is a miracle that didn’t make sense to me (or others) until I learned it through the Orthodox Church. It seems so obvious but just didn’t make sense to me before because of how Protestant preachers taught it. The Church provides what is lacking in the Protestant community… context.
Thank you for this series.
I used to do the same thing using the scriptures to convince people of Hinduism may god forgive me for causing those to stumble ☦️
My sister visited Hagia Sophia before it was turned into a mosque and she could still feel the spiritual essence of the church although by now it was treated as a museum. The muslims have tried to hide the iconography of Hagia Sophia but the pictures still seep through the fresh paint along with the holiness of the once great cathedral.
Then she went to the vatican and all she felt was coldness. She as an artist could appreciate the architecture but the vatican according to her was souless. How sad for us as Orthodox christians who had Hagia Sophia stolen from us and how sad for our catholic brethren who are lost to the coldness of the vatican. I pray for continued guidance 🙏🇦🇺
Christ is in our midst! Thank you so much for this series, Fr. Truebenbach! I'm a lapsed Catechumen returning and attempting to regain my footing. I really enjoy the way you break down these ideas and concepts! God Be With You!
Appreciate all these videos Father thank you very much, man
Thank you Fr.! It’s great enlightenment , we hope for more lecture please.
Thank you for this series.
Father Paul it just makes me laugh when you say we're all harlots😂😂😂 because we're attached to sin
1:00:25 the OSB lists readings
Wait about traditions……Josephus was alive when Paul was alive too…….🤯
I've been loving the series, but Sola Scriptura isn't that the Scripture is the only authority ,it's the only infallible authority (I'm not posting to discuss the definition, I'm posting to provide the correct definition, I understand we won't agree on if Sola Scriptura is true). It's also not the only source of truth. Paul himself said nature points to truth, it points to God. People all around the world, have found truth's (even if it's not the full truth) without the scriptures. Many Protestants still have tradition, and accept other rules of authority, but we simply hold the scripture as the only infallible source.
I hear ya... as a reformed protestant we hold to Scripture alone. However, that to me is not very clear, and so, you can make it to whatever you want it to mean.
However, I understand why the protestants have it though... ask the Roman Catholic church.
During the time of Luther, the Catholic church abused it's power and I'd say that the Catholic church was being tyrannical in a sense. So, if the orthodox church decided to go a little cray-cray, people are going to go to Scripture for truth.
Yes, there is a technical difference between "sola" scriptura (one of the Protestant Reformation's "five solae") and "solo" scriptura, which is what Fr. Paul labels as "sola scriptura." The difference, as you suggest is that sola scriptura considers the scriptures as the sole infallible rule and solo scriptura claims that scriptures are the sole rule of faith, full stop. I say that this is only a technical difference because for all intents and purposes, solo scriptura has eclipsed and subsumed sola scriptura in influence and practice (though the irony is that solo/a scriptura, however you choose it, is itself a tradition). If you doubt this, feel free to research the numbers of the SBC and other Baptist conferences, Pentacostals, Church of Christ (Stone-Campbell movement in which I grew up) and other solo scriptura denominations and allegedly non-denominational churches against those of the mainline churches. The difference between the terms exists, but it is insubstantial in the modern lexicon, similar in nature to the which/that distinction in proper grammar.
As someone who grew up in and got an undergraduate degree from a University run by the Stone-Campbell movement (i.e. the "non-denominational" churches of Christ), I heard for decades that, "We will speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent." This is, again, internally inconsistent because it is not itself in the Scriptures, but it is demonstrative of the problem with solo/a scriptura: who defines, a) what scripture/the Bible is; and b) who determines what it means? The fundamental flaw of the Protestant Reformation is that you will know a tree by its fruit, and the fruit of it is the absolute shattering of an otherwise-monolithic Western Church. This fracturing results in myriad problems, including but not limited to what Fr. Paul mentioned here, as well as the absolute erosion of Church discipline (this is one of the greatest reasons I began looking into the Orthodox Church over three years ago, after having heard of Byzantine Rite Catholicism on Matt Fradd's podcast (Pints with Aquinas)). This loss of church discipline is not initially apparent, because local churches can (and do) excommunicate- though they usually call it disfellowshipping to sound less Roman Catholic, in my experience- people, but it loses any bite and all force when the "disciplined" party can drive less than a mile down the road and join into full communion with another part of the "invisible church" without question, problems, or change to his/her life. This always seemed odd to me, and so I began to think about history and read, both history and the Ante-Nicene Fathers (though at first only as if they had a historic value, but St. Justin Martyr and St. John Chrysostom quickly dispelled that idea).
Along the lines of thinking historically, I always accepted the creed of the Stone-Campbellites, supra, but when I considered the fact that Luther had removed the so-called Apocrypha from the Roman Church's Bible (and also tried to remove other books that he was, by the Grace of God and influence of contemporaries, prevented from doing so), I realized that the catchy aphorism begs the question of what, exactly, the Bible is. In order to speak where the Bible speaks, and vice versa, one must be able to define what the Bible is and what is in the Bible (which includes what is not in the Bible). But in order to speak where it speaks, then it must define itself, which it does not, and no one can claim it does. The Churches of Christ tries to explain this through using certain criteria, including historicity and apostolic authorship, yet it also largely accepts the idea that Paul maybe didn't write the Epistle to the Hebrews. Not only that, but the Gospels according to Mark and Luke, along with Acts, clearly are not written by Apostles. To be clear, I love the intent behind the Stone-Campbell movement, I just now believe that it falls short in its noble and laudable goals because it eschews history and (at least tacitly) accepts the Great Apostasy Theory, which is facially against the words of Christ, when He said, "I will be with you always, even unto the end of the Age." The problem is that the Biblical canon preexists the movement by hundreds of years, was set by the people who had fallen into the Great Apostasy, and was preserved by the same people (usually explained as the protecting work of the Holy Spirit through the "faithful remnant," but the remnant usually traces its way through heretic sects, none of which include St. Athanasius).
Circling back to solo/a scriptura, it is comical to realize that they claim to be, and by technical definition are, different, but are practically the same because the Scriptures can and do not exist apart from a tradition (or Tradition). To deny that (i.e. solo scriptura) requires adhering to a tradition that is unstated and assumed, thus becoming sola scriptura; yet both beg the questions of what Scripture is, from whence it came, and by whom/how it was preserved.
I know that this is a TH-cam comment and will not change anyone's mind or convince anyone of anything, so I attempted to explain why the two terms (solo/a scriptura) are functionally the same, yet you are technically correct (which as a lawyer, I will grant is the best kind of correct ;) ) in as few words as possible, yet still ended up being long winded. Thank you to anyone who bothered to waste your time reading my unimaginative and unoriginal, thoroughly unconvincing ramblings.
I have come to the frightening and (I believe) inescapable conclusion that, when you consider the fact that Christianity is a historical religion (i.e. that it has existed in the world for the past ~2,000 years) and begin to delve into that history, either Rome or Constantinople, et al, ends up being correct, and Rome is the OG Protestant church, thus leaving Constantinople (not counting the non-Chalcedonian churches). Now I just have to convince the wife. May God grant us all to enter into the fullness of His Truth.
@@BrianBrenon The abuses of Solo Scriptura do not negate that there is a genuine difference between Sola & Solo. Even Augustine said the Plenary Councils can be corrected (On Christian Doctrine 3.16 I believe). Cyril said in his Catechism Lectures (to those not even yet fully in the Church) that they should test everything against Scripture even his words, and that Scripture is above all others. Sola Scriptura acknowledges the validity & use of Tradition, but in line with the Fathers we place it beneath Scripture. I could cite father after father after father on this. I highly recomend a work called "The Shape of Sola Scriptura" on this exact topic. Sola Scriptura doesn't simply collapse on itself. Javier Perdomo (www.youtube . com/@javierperd2604) just did a great video reacting to that claim from Trent Horn I recommend watching.
@@BrianBrenon Also i just want to note, Luther did not remove books from the Bible. And the what Scripture is question, is not a problem for us. On my profile I have a public playlist addressing that in particular. Since I doubt the good Fr. would want us having an extended debate in the comments on his catechism video.