The Reformers and Sola Scriptura

[~Anastasia~]

I just read an excellent post and have permission to share from CryptoLutheran. I'll post the entire thing below for reference.

What most interested me was the part where he talked about how the Reformers understood Sola Scriptura (and I would argue that it is their understanding that matters, since they were the ones originally arguing for it). Specifically that they allowed history and tradition to inform their reading of Scripture (but not to lord over it). I had not realized this, and I'd like to explore whether those in the Reformed Tradition still agree with this, and what that might look like.

To be honest, I do not find it that different from the way the Orthodox Church explains their view of Scripture, which is namely that while Tradition as a whole informs the Church, Scripture is the central and most authoritative part of that Tradition.

So I'm most interested in whether and how much the Reformed statement differs from the practices of Orthodoxy, and related discussion. As well as how the Reformed statement compares to the practices of Sola Scriptura today.

Other questions related to this topic are welcome also, but I would ask that we not seek to turn this into a argument about particular churches. I would like to discuss the ideas and practices as much as possible.

Thank you!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


The most relevant part of CL's post:

This should not be regarded as a problem for the divine integrity and authority of Scripture, as long as we approach Scripture rightly and not make assumptions about Scripture that are neither themselves Scriptural nor in keeping with the rather plain history of the Canon of Scripture.

This isn't a problem for an historical understanding of Sola Scriptura, as understood by the Reformers who readily and enthusiastically allowed history and tradition to inform their reading of Scripture (but not lord over it). But it may be a problem for certain "Bible onlyists" whose unwillingness to read the Scriptures within the confessional and believing communion of saints throughout history might find the history and lack of rigidity of the Canon's history troublesome--and the Canon's dependence upon the history and tradition of the Christian Church a stumbling block.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The entire post, for reference.

The Apocalypse of St. John (the Revelation) isn't used in the Eastern lectionary (the regular Scripture readings that form a fundamental portion of the Liturgy). But it is still accepted as Holy Scripture.

The reason for this goes back to antiquity. In the Western Church the Apocalypse of St. John has been widely accepted, the Latin Fathers widely speak favorably on it and emphasize its position as Holy Scripture. The Eastern Church was very slow to accept this book, and the Greek and other Eastern Fathers do not speak of it very often. It really isn't until the 8th century that the Eastern Church came to embrace it more fully, in part because of the influence of St. John of Damascus, one of the most important Eastern theologians of that period, who argued strongly for its full acceptance.

The Canon of the New Testament evolved rather slowly, and was not in every place uniformly accepted at the same time. The Armenian Church for many years included a book known as III Corinthians, though it does so no longer. Biblical codices from the 5th century, namely Sinaiticus, includes 1 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas.

The New Testament can largely be divided into two categories:

1) Those books which were very nearly and universally accepted from very early on, most prominently the Four Gospels, and the Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. Also here we can place 1 John and 1 Peter.

2) Those books which were known as Antilegomena, meaning "Disputed Books", these include 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse of St. John. But it also included works that are now no longer accepted by anyone, the Didache, 1 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and sometimes also the Apocalypse of Peter.

A late 2nd century/early 3rd century manuscript known as the Muratorian Fragment lists those books which were most widely accepted, while also mentioning those that were disputed.

In the West, as late as the 14th century, John Wycliffe in his English translation includes the spurious Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, which was never widely accepted and in most places widely regarded as a spurious forgery. That means that Wycliffe's New Testament contains 28 rather than 27 books.

Luther very nearly removed four books from his German translation of the Bible, specifically Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse of John. Though he was convinced to keep them by others, though he placed them last; thus they were treated only slightly better than the Old Testament Deuterocanonicals, which Luther placed in a separate appendix. Though in some ways Luther speaks more favorably of these Deuterocanonicals than he does of those four NT texts, in particular he took issue with James early on, calling it an "Epistle of Straw" and "having no Gospel in it whatsoever".

The history of the Biblical Canon is two thousand years old, and it's clear that we are still debating it even today; one need only consult the differences in Canon between Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Bibles; having 66, 73, and ~76 books respectively. And further differences among these three even when dealing with accepted books, such as Esther, Daniel, and the Psalms (the Eastern Orthodox accept 151st Psalm as canonical, Roman Catholics and Protestants do not).

As such we must understand that the Biblical Canon is not something given by Divine Fiat, but is the resulting evolution of within Christian Church through general consensus of that Christian Church--and even then there still does not remain perfect and universal consensus.

This should not be regarded as a problem for the divine integrity and authority of Scripture, as long as we approach Scripture rightly and not make assumptions about Scripture that are neither themselves Scriptural nor in keeping with the rather plain history of the Canon of Scripture.

This isn't a problem for an historical understanding of Sola Scriptura, as understood by the Reformers who readily and enthusiastically allowed history and tradition to inform their reading of Scripture (but not lord over it). But it may be a problem for certain "Bible onlyists" whose unwillingness to read the Scriptures within the confessional and believing communion of saints throughout history might find the history and lack of rigidity of the Canon's history troublesome--and the Canon's dependence upon the history and tradition of the Christian Church a stumbling block.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Targaryen]

This is going to be a productive thread.

Subscribing.

 

[Chesterton]

"Sola Scriptura, as understood by the Reformers who readily and enthusiastically allowed history and tradition to inform their reading of Scripture (but not lord over it)."

It's such a convoluted question from the outset because Scripture is history and Tradition. They let Tradition inform Tradition? Just some Tradition; they wanted to get rid of the parts of Tradition which had (arguably) gone bad in the West.

 

[~Anastasia~]

This is going to be a productive thread.

Subscribing.

I hope so.

So .... do you know is there an official Anglican position on this? I wonder if they agree with CL's statement concerning the Reformed position?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Sola Scriptura, as understood by the Reformers who readily and enthusiastically allowed history and tradition to inform their reading of Scripture (but not lord over it).

It's such a convoluted question from the outset because Scripture is history and Tradition. They let Tradition inform Tradition? Just some Tradition; they wanted to get rid of the parts of Tradition which had (arguably) gone bad in the West.

Hmmmm. You have a point. The intent at the same time was to discard certain traditions, was it not? Such as indulgences, particularly?

The Lutherans probably know more about this than anyone else. But I'm interested.

 

[Targaryen]

Crypto's comment on the Reformers is I think sums up well the Anglican position on the reformers, the Solas of which Sola Scriptura is one of the tenants and how we hold that in same reverence as the Ancient Church fathers teachings.

However as to an "official" Anglican position, Article 34 of the 39 Articles says the closest thing to it,baring in mind the language and role of Edward VI in 1549:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church.

"It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying."[/FONT]

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

From Via Crusia post concerning the late 2nd century/early 3rd century manuscript known as the Muratorian Fragment lists those books which were most widely accepted, while also mentioning those that were disputed. This may help to shed some light for discussion.

There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [6b] [and] another to the Alexandrians, [6c] [both] forged in Paul's (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others (66) which cannot be received into the catholic Church (67)— for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. (68) Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John are counted (or, used) in the catholic [Church]; [7] and [the book of] Wisdom, (70) written by the friends [7a] of Solomon in his honour. (71) We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, (72) [7b] though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. (73) But Hermas wrote the Shepherd (74) very recently, [7c] in our times, in the city of Rome, (75) while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair (76) of the church of the city of Rome. [7d] (77) And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but (78) it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among (79) the Prophets, whose number is complete, [8] or among (80) the Apostles, for it is after [their] time. (81) But we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades, (82) who also composed (83) a new book of psalms for Marcion, (84-5) together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians [8a] . . .

______________________

6 The letter 'b' in the Latin text before 'Galatians' may belong to 'Corinthians' (προς Κορινθιους Β').
6a Latin, principium. —M.D.M.
6b Tregelles writes, “It appears impossible to suppose that the cento of phrases from St. Paul’s genuine Epistles, often found in Latin MSS. under the name of Epistola ad Laodicenses, is here intended. … the writer seems to have intended the Epistle to the Ephesians, which Marcion altered, and to which he gave this name, either as part of his changes, or it may be from having obtained his copy of it from Laodicea.” (p. 47) —M.D.M.
6c Nothing is known of the Epistle to the Alexandrians mentioned here. —M.D.M.
7 It may be, as Zahn (Geschichte, ii, 66) and others have supposed, that a negative has fallen out of the text here.
7a Tregelles suggests that the Latin translator of this document mistook the Greek Philonos "Philo" for philon "friends." Many in ancient times thought that the so-called "Wisdom of Solomon" was really written by Philo of Alexandria. —M.D.M.
7b The Apocalypse of Peter describes with some imaginative detail the torments of hell and the blessings of heaven. It was read with respect and used for admonition throughout the churches in early times. —M.D.M.
7c The Shepherd of Hermas is another work widely read in early times. It is a kind of moral allegory, like Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, but more impressive in that it purports to convey a series of divine revelations. —M.D.M.
7d This would be Pius I, bishop of Rome from about 142 to 157. —M.D.M.
8 Perhaps the Fragmentist means that there are three major Prophets and twelve minor Prophets.
8a The few words that follow this are unintelligible, and so the fragment practically ends here. —M.D.M.

 

[ViaCrucis]

"Sola Scriptura, as understood by the Reformers who readily and enthusiastically allowed history and tradition to inform their reading of Scripture (but not lord over it)."

It's such a convoluted question from the outset because Scripture is history and Tradition. They let Tradition inform Tradition? Just some Tradition; they wanted to get rid of the parts of Tradition which had (arguably) gone bad in the West.

The idea was that Scripture itself, as the written witness to the faith set forth by the Apostles should function as the chief regulating principle, or "Regula Fidei". The interplay between Scripture and the Church's confessional statements (e.g. the Creeds) was to speak of Scripture as the Norma Normans (the Norm that Norms) and the Creeds/Confessions as Norma Normata (The Normed Norm).

In Lutheran thought (as best as I presently understand it) to confess and hold fast to the Creeds (and Confessions) is to confess, receive, and believe the very Word of God; because Scripture, God's written word, has normed, has regulated, has set forth, and the Church responds with its "Amen", that "Amen" comes in what she confesses and believes. God has spoken in the Scriptures, and the Church adds her "Yes, we believe" in the Creeds, Confessions, and historic faith that has been believed and received down through the generations.

As such the Church's grand Tradition is not to be rejected, but to be understood both as delivering to us the faith as it has been received; while at all times being laid beneath authority of Scripture--and if or when there is a disagreement, Scripture wins. Scripture is therefore the final court of appeal. It is, at the end of the day, to say that the Church should never dare to speak contrary to Holy Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[~Anastasia~]

The idea was that Scripture itself, as the written witness to the faith set forth by the Apostles should function as the chief regulating principle, or "Regula Fidei". The interplay between Scripture and the Church's confessional statements (e.g. the Creeds) was to speak of Scripture as the Norma Normans (the Norm that Norms) and the Creeds/Confessions as Norma Normata (The Normed Norm).

In Lutheran thought (as best as I presently understand it) to confess and hold fast to the Creeds (and Confessions) is to confess, receive, and believe the very Word of God; because Scripture, God's written word, has normed, has regulated, has set forth, and the Church responds with its "Amen", that "Amen" comes in what she confesses and believes. God has spoken in the Scriptures, and the Church adds her "Yes, we believe" in the Creeds, Confessions, and historic faith that has been believed and received down through the generations.

As such the Church's grand Tradition is not to be rejected, but to be understood both as delivering to us the faith as it has been received; while at all times being laid beneath authority of Scripture--and if or when there is a disagreement, Scripture wins. Scripture is therefore the final court of appeal. It is, at the end of the day, to say that the Church should never dare to speak contrary to Holy Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

I understand this leaves leeway for pious thought and actions that are not promoted, but neither are they prohibited, in Scripture?

Would a problem come in if the Church began (or always had) required something that was not a part of Scripture?

Thank you.

 

[faroukfarouk]

"...unwillingness to read the Scriptures within the confessional and believing communion of saints throughout history"

This sounds like the person who wrote this wants to read the Scriptures through creeds drawn up by ecclesiastical authorities, rather than the other way round.

"...the Canon's dependence upon the history and tradition of the Christian Church a stumbling block..."

This means that what Scripture is in all its authority, is supposedly dependent on ecclesiastical tradition.

 

[Albion]

There is a difference, though, Kylissa. It takes care and understanding of the fine points (which some here prefer not to do) in order to get it correct.

The Catholic position (East and West alike) is that Tradition includes Scripture, but this of course admits of nonScriptural input as well and it being made into dogma--legend, opinion, custom, etc.

THAT is what the Reformers objected to. And we must remember that the age of myth and magic was just about at its peak, both in the secular and the religious worlds, at the time that stirrings began that ultimately became the Reformation.

In addition, we have to bear in mind that these nonScriptural ideas are justified by the Roman Catholic Church as a second stream of divine revelation. That notion is a problem for reformed Christians right there.

Then too, there are standards by which this Tradition is supposed to be validated. Continuity and consensus, for example, but they are often missing and the process is instead an exercise in selectivity. This is why the EO rejects a number of RC doctrines it says derives from Tradition, even though the EO believe in Tradition. You can't just wave the word at an idea voiced by someone or other in the past and proclaim it a tradition always held, if unofficially, by the church.

So what is the Sola Scriptura view? You are correct that it is, for the older churches of the Reformation at least, not something that operates or is understood in a vacuum. Catholic debaters love to accuse Protestants of taking the Bible out of context by allowing nothing other than the reading of its contents to determine doctrine...and yet they also enjoy accusing the Protestants of NOT being true to that concept but of having their own traditions that form doctrine for them! Most of that is baloney, but the truth is somewhere in the middle of it.

Note that the title of the Anglican forum is STR--Scripture, Tradition, Reason. That's a famous trio. These (and a fourth, Experience, for Methodists) are a package that allows us to understand Scripture.

Did you see the difference? These (T and R) enable us to properly understand Scripture, to see it in context, to understand the idioms and analogies used by by the writers, and so on. BUT Scripture itself is the final word. No legends allegedly comfortable to Scripture. No customs or opinions made into doctrine on the basis that "the Scripture doesn't forbid it." None of those hijinks.

In sum, you have Scripture and more, all called Tradition. We have the use of tradition and reason in comprehending Scripture which alone defines essential doctrine.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There is a difference, though, Kylissa. It takes care and understanding of the fine points (which some here prefer not to do) in order to get it correct.

The Catholic position (East and West alike) is that Tradition includes Scripture, but this of course admits of nonScriptural input as well and it being made into dogma--legend, opinion, custom, etc.

THAT is what the Reformers objected to. And we must remember that the age of myth and magic was just about at its peak, both in the secular and the religious worlds, at the time that stirrings began that ultimately became the Reformation.

In addition, we have to bear in mind that these nonScriptural ideas are justified by the Roman Catholic Church as a second stream of divine revelation. That notion is a problem for reformed Christians right there.

Then too, there are standards by which this Tradition is supposed to be validated. Continuity and consensus, for example, but they are often missing and the process is instead an exercise in selectivity. This is why the EO rejects a number of RC doctrines it says derives from Tradition, even though the EO believe in Tradition. You can't just wave the word at an idea voiced by someone or other in the past and proclaim it a tradition always held, if unofficially, by the church.

So what is the Sola Scriptura view? You are correct that it is, for the older churches of the Reformation at least, not something that operates or is understood in a vacuum. Catholic debaters love to accuse Protestants of taking the Bible out of context by allowing nothing other than the reading of its contents to determine doctrine...and yet they also enjoy accusing the Protestants of NOT being true to that concept but of having their own traditions that form doctrine for them! Most of that is baloney, but the truth is somewhere in the middle of it.

Note that the title of the Anglican forum is STR--Scripture, Tradition, Reason. That's a famous trio. These (and a fourth, Experience, for Methodists) are a package that allows us to understand Scripture.

Did you see the difference? These (T and R) enable us to properly understand Scripture, to see it in context, to understand the idioms and analogies used by by the writers, and so on. BUT Scripture itself is the final word. No legends allegedly comfortable to Scripture. No customs or opinions made into doctrine on the basis that "the Scripture doesn't forbid it." None of those hijinks.

In sum, you have Scripture and more, all called Tradition. We have the use of tradition and reason in comprehending Scripture which alone defines essential doctrine.

Thank you, Albion.

If I step away from the official statements and just look at the Churches, it is of course very plain that there IS a difference.

It just doesn't seem to flow directly from the codified statements, and I was interested in that. Perhaps it is the prior history of Tradition that are responsible for those differences, though that means (necessarily) that the Reformers did indeed reject many Traditions, while affirming the role of Tradition to inform Scripture.

I don't mean this as any judgment or slur against any Church, I'm just trying to understand how the process came about.

For that matter, the Anglican Church in some cases claim an older Apostolic Tradition, yet they "appear" less like the Eastern Orthodox Church than the Oriental Orthodox (who were also somewhat isolated and purposely out of communion early on) do. Just an observation - there can be any number of reasons for that.

You make some good points. I need to think about this some more - I may need to ask you specifically about some of these points if you don't mind.

Thanks for the post.

 

[Chesterton]

The idea was that Scripture itself, as the written witness to the faith set forth by the Apostles should function as the chief regulating principle, or "Regula Fidei". The interplay between Scripture and the Church's confessional statements (e.g. the Creeds) was to speak of Scripture as the Norma Normans (the Norm that Norms) and the Creeds/Confessions as Norma Normata (The Normed Norm).

What we call Scripture was not conceived as norma normans, and never treated that way. I'd think a bare minimum for considering anything norma normans would be that the thing itself has to self-identify as norma normans, i.e., the Constitution of the U.S. refers to itself as the "law of the land" (not in those words, but you know what I mean). The New Testament does not do this, despite that one line from Timothy which is often vainly spun by SS'ers.

As such the Church's grand Tradition is not to be rejected, but to be understood both as delivering to us the faith as it has been received; while at all times being laid beneath authority of Scripture--and if or when there is a disagreement, Scripture wins. Scripture is therefore the final court of appeal. It is, at the end of the day, to say that the Church should never dare to speak contrary to Holy Scripture.

A book and a court of appeal are two different things, otherwise we wouldn't need judges. At the risk of sounding snarky, if the Book were the Court, in the last 100 years we could not have the Klan, nudists, Mexican death cults, etc. thinking they can legitimately be calling themselves Christian.

 

[Standing Up]

There is a difference, though, Kylissa. It takes care and understanding of the fine points (which some here prefer not to do) in order to get it correct.

The Catholic position (East and West alike) is that Tradition includes Scripture, but this of course admits of nonScriptural input as well and it being made into dogma--legend, opinion, custom, etc.

THAT is what the Reformers objected to. And we must remember that the age of myth and magic was just about at its peak, both in the secular and the religious worlds, at the time that stirrings began that ultimately became the Reformation.

In addition, we have to bear in mind that these nonScriptural ideas are justified by the Roman Catholic Church as a second stream of divine revelation. That notion is a problem for reformed Christians right there.

Then too, there are standards by which this Tradition is supposed to be validated. Continuity and consensus, for example, but they are often missing and the process is instead an exercise in selectivity. This is why the EO rejects a number of RC doctrines it says derives from Tradition, even though the EO believe in Tradition. You can't just wave the word at an idea voiced by someone or other in the past and proclaim it a tradition always held, if unofficially, by the church.

So what is the Sola Scriptura view? You are correct that it is, for the older churches of the Reformation at least, not something that operates or is understood in a vacuum. Catholic debaters love to accuse Protestants of taking the Bible out of context by allowing nothing other than the reading of its contents to determine doctrine...and yet they also enjoy accusing the Protestants of NOT being true to that concept but of having their own traditions that form doctrine for them! Most of that is baloney, but the truth is somewhere in the middle of it.

Note that the title of the Anglican forum is STR--Scripture, Tradition, Reason. That's a famous trio. These (and a fourth, Experience, for Methodists) are a package that allows us to understand Scripture.

Did you see the difference? These (T and R) enable us to properly understand Scripture, to see it in context, to understand the idioms and analogies used by by the writers, and so on. BUT Scripture itself is the final word. No legends allegedly comfortable to Scripture. No customs or opinions made into doctrine on the basis that "the Scripture doesn't forbid it." None of those hijinks.

In sum, you have Scripture and more, all called Tradition. We have the use of tradition and reason in comprehending Scripture which alone defines essential doctrine.

Great explanation.

 

[Albion]

Of course, I welcome your comments and questions, Kylissa. And you are correct that the Oriental Orthodox have more in common with the EO than do we Anglicans. In case there is any question about it, I referred to Anglicanism by name in my post mainly because of that STR thing. It made for a convenient example, but I do not want to make Anglicanism somehow special in this discussion.

Thank you, Albion.

If I step away from the official statements and just look at the Churches, it is of course very plain that there IS a difference.

It just doesn't seem to flow directly from the codified statements, and I was interested in that. Perhaps it is the prior history of Tradition that are responsible for those differences, though that means (necessarily) that the Reformers did indeed reject many Traditions, while affirming the role of Tradition to inform Scripture.

I don't mean this as any judgment or slur against any Church, I'm just trying to understand how the process came about.

For that matter, the Anglican Church in some cases claim an older Apostolic Tradition, yet they "appear" less like the Eastern Orthodox Church than the Oriental Orthodox (who were also somewhat isolated and purposely out of communion early on) do. Just an observation - there can be any number of reasons for that.

You make some good points. I need to think about this some more - I may need to ask you specifically about some of these points if you don't mind.

Thanks for the post.

 

[~Anastasia~]

So what is the Sola Scriptura view? You are correct that it is, for the older churches of the Reformation at least, not something that operates or is understood in a vacuum. Catholic debaters love to accuse Protestants of taking the Bible out of context by allowing nothing other than the reading of its contents to determine doctrine...and yet they also enjoy accusing the Protestants of NOT being true to that concept but of having their own traditions that form doctrine for them! Most of that is baloney, but the truth is somewhere in the middle of it.

Thinking about it a little more ... I'm probably taking my own thread off topic, but I did define the topic broadly on purpose.

I will speak up as having been one of the "Protestants" being referred to here. (To be honest, I'm not so sure it applies then to Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. or to the Reformers properly.)

What I was taught originally is quite different though. We DID consider ourselves "Bible only" and read and derive all context from Scripture itself. And you are also right that there were traditions of doctrine handed down that were supposed to inform those Scriptural interpretations. This is exactly the conundrum that led me to reexamine everything, thanks be to God!

I had a question - mostly about your comment that truth was in the middle ground. Perhaps it is, for part of the Church. I suppose I'm not familiar with that. So I guess my question is - who would that be referring to?

Because in thinking about it, both accusations are true against the churches I usually called my home.

 

[~Anastasia~]

What we call Scripture was not conceived as norma normans, and never treated that way. I'd think a bare minimum for considering anything norma normans would be that the thing itself has to self-identify as norma normans, i.e., the Constitution of the U.S. refers to itself as the "law of the land" (not in those words, but you know what I mean). The New Testament does not do this, despite that one line from Timothy which is often vainly spun by SS'ers.



A book and a court of appeal are two different things, otherwise we wouldn't need judges. At the risk of sounding snarky, if the Book were the Court, in the last 100 years we could not have the Klan, nudists, Mexican death cults, etc. thinking they can legitimately be calling themselves Christian.

It strikes me, and I may be wrong, but it has been seeming to me that a large part of the difference between the way Orthodox handle Scripture and the way those Churches that came about much later handle Scripture has to do with the way they view it.

If so much of Orthodox practice has its roots before the canonization of Scripture, and the beliefs and practices of the early Church were what was the norming principle for deciding the canon (did I say that correctly?) then it would make sense that the early Church would never subject itself to redefining what it was already doing based on Scripture that came about because of the practices. It's circular, and would make no sense?

But there WAS a Canon in place for the Churches that developed later, and they never had the task (not really) of deciding which writings were representative of Christian belief and which were not, and so on. I know there was a bit of wrangling, but for the most part, that was decided.

And if all of the Church (including Orthodoxy - and presumably Catholicism?) holds Scripture to be the highest authority ... blend that with a tendency to discard traditions that seemed to be problematic, and it seems you have a recipe for subjugating Church practice to Scripture for reasons that never existed in the early Church.

Am I making sense? Are there large errors in this thinking, or does it seem reasonable?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Of course, I welcome your comments and questions, Kylissa. And you are correct that the Oriental Orthodox have more in common with the EO than do we Anglicans. In case there is any question about it, I referred to Anglicanism by name in my post mainly because of that STR thing. It made for a convenient example, but I do not want to make Anglicanism somehow special in this discussion.

It's true that I really don't want to discuss specific Churches, though sometimes it is necessary to define what is being said. I can appreciate the S-T-R statement. I was quite impressed with the Methodist method of STR+Experience when I first read about it (and still am). It loosely codified what I had tried to do on my own (minus Tradition, because I was actually finding the Traditions that I had been handed to be the problem - so I guess I can sympathize with that understanding as well).

I do have more thoughts about those particular Churches, but it would take this thread too far off topic and wouldn't be helpful for this discussion, so I will save those.

 

[Albion]

I had a question - mostly about your comment that truth was in the middle ground.

No, I didn't say "middle ground." I said it was in the middle of that mess of half-truths, whatever they might be called, that I was speaking about. I didn't mean to convey any idea that it is the halfway point between extremes or anything like that.

We DID consider ourselves "Bible only" and read and derive all context from Scripture itself. And you are also right that there were traditions of doctrine handed down that were supposed to inform those Scriptural interpretations. This is exactly the conundrum that led me to reexamine everything, thanks be to God!

I've been around, and I think I know what you're telling us there about those churches. But I feel that "Bible only" talk is just a way of driving home the point that extraneous religious opinion, religious speculation, and so on, is NOT what the churches you are referring to deal in. And they don't. But they do actually utilize reason and the historical record of the Apostolic faith, etc. in their thinking processes. That's not a contradiction.

A Lutheran pastor, for example, may well speak of the Bible as our guiding light and the Bible only, but he's been to seminary and, in an inquirers' class, he's just as likely to tell you that the early church--according to all the historical material and information we can find--did not ordain women. Of course, he's saying it to show that the Bible's directions were being upheld by those closest to the Apostles and that the traditional policy of a male-only pastorate is right. He's proving the point. But you might say he was giving a nod to something other than just the verses found in the Bible. Yes, in a way, but at all in the way that "Sacred Tradition" operates in the Catholic churches.

 

[BobRyan]

I just read an excellent post and have permission to share from CryptoLutheran. I'll post the entire thing below for reference.

What most interested me was the part where he talked about how the Reformers understood Sola Scriptura (and I would argue that it is their understanding that matters, since they were the ones originally arguing for it). Specifically that they allowed history and tradition to inform their reading of Scripture (but not to lord over it). I had not realized this, and I'd like to explore whether those in the Reformed Tradition still agree with this, and what that might look like.

To be honest, I do not find it that different from the way the Orthodox Church explains their view of Scripture, which is namely that while Tradition as a whole informs the Church, Scripture is the central and most authoritative part of that Tradition.

All doctrine and practice is to be tested "sola scriptura" to see if it is in harmony with the Word of God.

This does not mean that tradition is worthless or invalid - but if that tradition is in violation of the Word of God - then it is invalid.

That is the teaching of Christ in Mark 7:13-16.

That is the teaching that we find in Acts 17:11 "they studied the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO".

It does not say "they studied scripture PLUS long standing tradition to see if those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO".

in Christ,

Bob