Sola Scriptura?

[Tangible]

In the Lutheran view there is actually quite a bit of latitude for pious opinion not in conflict with scripture. In our minds, the problem arises when dogmas are promulgated and consciences are bound to doctrines not based on scripture. In this case we see it as a Christian duty to oppose such requirements.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Am appreciating following along.

Just one ? in this - I don't know of any extra-Scriptural requirements for salvation within Orthodoxy? Do those in or out of our Tradition perceive any?

 

[hedrick]

Am appreciating following along.

Just one ? in this - I don't know of any extra-Scriptural requirements for salvation within Orthodoxy? Do those in or out of our Tradition perceive any?

Is belief in the Trinity required?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Is belief in the Trinity required?

Interesting question.

Truth is, we have dogmas OF THE CHURCH which are required to belong to the community, but in thinking of what is REQUIRED FOR SALVATION ... I'm not sure we even presume to number any, since we believe God can have mercy on whoever He will.

Belief in the Holy Trinity is core to being an Orthodox Christian, yes. I would say generally one must affirm most or all of the Nicene Creed in fact.

But required for salvation? I'm honestly not sure we would say that. The only completely firm requirement I think no one would deny is that the person must not willingly reject God's forgiveness and mercy.

 

[hedrick]

But required for salvation? I'm honestly not sure we would say that. The only completely firm requirement I think no one would deny is that the person must not willingly reject God's forgiveness and mercy.

I agree.

 

[Albion]

Am appreciating following along.

Just one ? in this - I don't know of any extra-Scriptural requirements for salvation within Orthodoxy? Do those in or out of our Tradition perceive any?

Let's turn this around temporarily for the sake us who are not Orthodox. What is the basis for such teachings as:

Prayer To The Saints

Apostolic Succession

Ecumenical Councils as Infallible

Mary's Ever-Virginity and Bodily Assumption

and if a member rejects any of them, does it matter?

 

[gordonhooker]

Let's turn this around temporarily for the sake us who are not Orthodox. What is the basis for such teachings as:

Prayer To The Saints

Apostolic Succession

Ecumenical Councils as Infallible

Mary's Ever-Virginity and Bodily Assumption

and if a member rejects any of them, does it matter?

[Staff edit]. Just as Scripture, and Reason are important to our understanding of the nature of God so is Tradition that is not to say there has not been some misuse of Tradition by some Church Leaders over the years.

With regards the topics above:

Prayers to the Saints... Not quite correct - from what I know from my ever so short time studying RC doctrine and talking to fellow Franciscans who are RC. What is meant to happen is that the people ask the Saints to pray for them I suppose just as we ask our prayer chain co-ordinate to put ourselves or our family on the prayer-list. Off the top of my head scripture that points to the prayer of Saints is in Revelations 8, so this could be a basis for that teaching.

Apostolic Succession - Acts and Paul's letters to name a few of dedicating leaders to go out and preach the Gospel.

Ecumenical Councils as Infallible - When Christ said to the disciples what ever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loose in heaven. Matt. 16:19 and Matt. 18:18. That is not to say that the decisions made by these Church Leaders was sound or not, but I can see how that scripture could be used to come up with the doctrine of infallibility, do I agree with it? No I see it as another misuse of Tradition.

Mary's Ever-Virginity and Bodily Assumption - I have never been able to come to terms with this doctrine and I have never found anything in scripture that affirms it. I believe these ideas come from a group of tired old mean who could not possibly see our Lord Jesus Christ being incarnated just like we were, for some reason they thought is takes away from the Divinity of Christ. Us Franciscans embrace the humility of the incarnation of our Lord and we respect his Mother Mary as a Saint and the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We are fallible just as the Church Fathers were; I thank God we can turn to Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience to help us to understand the nature of God.

 

[All4Christ]

Let's turn this around temporarily for the sake us who are not Orthodox. What is the basis for such teachings as:

Prayer To The Saints

Apostolic Succession

Ecumenical Councils as Infallible

Mary's Ever-Virginity and Bodily Assumption

and if a member rejects any of them, does it matter?

Apologies in advance for the brevity, as I can only answer part of this in the few minutes I have right now. It's been a great day, but very busy!

First, while the dogmas proclaimed by ecumenical councils are upheld, some canonical legislation (such as disciplinary canons) from the councils are not always upheld forever. It is authoritative for the church at that time. Circumstances change, however, and it may no longer be relevant, or the Church may determine that a situation warrants a different usage. There is also an element of pastoral application of the canons.

I actually don't know of a dogma stating that the ecumenical councils are infallible, though it is accepted that the dogmas proclaimed by the councils are authoritative (and yes, infallible). Second, councils are ecumenical by the acceptance of the Church as a whole, not by the bishops proclaiming it is ecumenical. (All that said, I'm not trying to diminish the importance of ecumenical councils.)

A member needs to accept the dogmas of the church. If they don't accept them, it is a concern, as they are not in full communion with the church (unity of beliefs). However, that doesn't mean they won't be saved. We honestly don't judge salvation of anyone. I'm sure there will be many non-Orthodox in heaven, my family included.

A Scripture off the top of my head - "obey those who are in leadership over you"...can't remember the exact verse without looking it up more though.

And now, I need to head out again...sorry for not having a full answer here!

 

[FenderTL5]

Yes, my reservation about that is that it apparently asserts that doctrines can be developed that have no Scriptural basis. Not that they conflict with Scripture, because that wouldn't be allowed, but which are nevertheless extra-Scriptural beliefs. Why any church would think that process to be necessary to engage in, I cannot appreciate.

That would be because the orthodox church asserts that it is a pre-New Testament church (as it applies to the written words).
The oral tradition and practice pre-dates even the first epistle's (James) writing by at least 20-25 years. The other 'books' trickled in over time, while the church was practicing. It's not just the establishment of canon. Even if we were to assume that every letter was immediately recognized as canon upon its writing, there's still the problem of the timeline.
The New Testament is actually from within the church's tradition, it's not extra or an aside. They are inseparable.

 

[FenderTL5]

On Ecumenical Council; Acts 15 establishes the model for resolving issues in the church.

 

[Albion]

The oral tradition and practice pre-dates even the first epistle's (James) writing by at least 20-25 years. The other 'books' trickled in over time, while the church was practicing. It's not just the establishment of canon. Even if we were to assume that every letter was immediately recognized as canon upon its writing, there's still the problem of the timeline.
The New Testament is actually from within the church's tradition, it's not extra or an aside. They are inseparable.

So, your point is that some of what's required of the members is not Biblical because the church says it was part of the faith of the Apostles but yet never written down in any Gospel or Epistle. But is there any evidence of that? None that I am aware of. How about you?

It would appear that the claim is just cover for whatever doctrine has been authorized but is without a Scriptural basis.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Let's turn this around temporarily for the sake us who are not Orthodox. What is the basis for such teachings as:

Prayer To The Saints

Apostolic Succession

Ecumenical Councils as Infallible

Mary's Ever-Virginity and Bodily Assumption

and if a member rejects any of them, does it matter?

Won't be able to reply in detail. Maybe in few days.

None of these required fir sakvation, as far as I know.

The O Church DOES have beliefs not clearly articulated in Scripture. Shouldn't be a problem - even Scripture says hold to those teachings delivered by word and epistle.

Asking intercession of Saints not required. Also not prohibited. Considered if it helps .... additional tool of benefit for us? But we believers are to pray for one another, in love. Christ intercedes for us. If believers are not unconscious, and are with Christ, the reasonable loving thing is to imitate and intercede for us?

Apostolic Succession - scriptural evidence of ordination. Records were kept. Men trained successors. Maybe more is implied than I know, but I think it just happened and was a reasonable course of action? Regarding todays's Christendom I think they could not foresee, but - like Antioch when believers were established, they sent Barnabas. B later went and got Paul. They stayed to teach for a year to establish Church. It seems normal process?

ECs ... I don't know if infallible is really right word, but the Church would be led into all Truth. Not one person only. So we trust what came to be accepted. Do you know a council can't teach against what the Church believes? Even laity have a place in maintaining doctrine. The reception of writings that became Scripture had to resound with laity to be accepted - an organic whole. Not some governing body that decides whatever it wants and must be obeyed.

Mary - from other writings and Tradition. Scripture doesn't actually contradict. Nevertheless harder for me to accept. But I do understand something now - relating to the miraculous connected to Christ instead. Seems very UNconnected to salvation though? Makes more sense too, to understand traditions associated with death of John, for example, and others, and realize some like Enoch, Elijah, Moses, ARE in Scripture. Funny, we defend miracles we read in Scripture, but reject those not mentioned, though John does specifically say not all of Christ's miracles written, so ... are we so sure every other miracle must be in canonized Scripture? Just my thinking though, but I found ironic.

Can we reject? Well, we must at least recognize the Church as having some authority. And as far as teaching about Mary, would have to talk to priest. I don't THINK it would bar communion ... but one would be censured for actively teaching against it. The only time I know of a person denied communion based on belief was doubt regarding the divinity of Christ. I'm speaking for those already Orthodox. If one wants to join and outright rejects these, the priest would probably hold off on receiving them. If they only have doubts though, it would depend, but disposed to Church's authority they could probably be received.

Hope that made sense. It's a big question.

We of course do not claim that everything we believe is explicit in Scripture, though most is supported or can be read as implied.

 

[Albion]

Can we reject? Well, we must at least recognize the Church as having some authority. And as far as teaching about Mary, would have to talk to priest. I don't THINK it would bar communion ... but one would be censured for actively teaching against it. The only time I know of a person denied communion based on belief was doubt regarding the divinity of Christ. I'm speaking for those already Orthodox. If one wants to join and outright rejects these, the priest would probably hold off on receiving them.

I appreciate what you said prior to the part I'm quoting here, but in view of what you say in this part of your post, it looks like my suspicions may be confirmed. But we can talk again about it at another time.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I appreciate what you said prior to the part I'm quoting here, but in view of what you say in this part of your post, it looks like my suspicions may be confirmed. But we can talk again about it at another time.

Will have to wait to discuss in depth, yes.

Just example - asking Saints for prayer. If one doubts, is uncomfortable, doesn't want to - they can still be received as long as they accept the Church is generally authoritative. They never have to ask any Saint to pray for them. But otoh, if they firmly believe the Saints are in soul-sleep, the Church is completely wrong and they know better than the Church, then they should not be received.

 

[FenderTL5]

So, your point is that some of what's required of the members is not Biblical because the church says it was part of the faith of the Apostles but yet never written down in any Gospel or Epistle. But is there any evidence of that? None that I am aware of. How about you?

I really can not address your awareness or lack of.

However, as example because you asked;The Orthodox fast on a regular basis. There are numerous references to fasting in scripture but we fast every Wednesday and Friday (with few exceptions).
Why? A Wednesday and Friday fast is not in the New Testament.
We do this because it was a teaching/practice taught by the Apostles. We know this because it was handed down and this is referenced in the Didache. We fast on Wednesday and Friday because those were the days of the betrayal and crucifixion.

It would appear that the claim is just cover for whatever doctrine has been authorized but is without a Scriptural basis.

In most Bibles, even those marketed to protestant churches, there are historical notes about each of the books/letters in the New Testament. Have you never read any of those? Have you never even been curious about that historical setting that precipitated the books of the New Testament; to whom they are written and why?
Again, I'm not referencing the canonization per say, just history and a time line. The Epistles in the New Testament are not written as a "how to conduct church" catechism. Each one was written to address a specific purpose, whether it was correction of something that needed to be addressed (such as 1 Corinthians) or a simple exhortation/greetings.
There's not a section in the NT on; When you baptize, do it this way.
Why? The letters were written to churches that already existed, they had already been taught how to baptize.
Yet, we will still see arguments raging about what (or if) there is the proper way to conduct baptisms today.
The Nicene Creed was not established to formulate a doctrine, it was established to address an error of doctrine that already existed..
This is the challenge for Sola Scriptura, as it is practiced, maybe not by definition. The Gospels and Epistles that make up the NT came from within Orthodox Tradition, they are not two separate items. The NT does not contradict Orthodox Tradition nor vice-versa, they are the same thing.

 

[Albion]

Will have to wait to discuss in depth, yes.

Just example - asking Saints for prayer. If one doubts, is uncomfortable, doesn't want to - they can still be received as long as they accept the Church is generally authoritative. They never have to ask any Saint to pray for them. But otoh, if they firmly believe the Saints are in soul-sleep, the Church is completely wrong and they know better than the Church, then they should not be received.

One comment at this point that I think is in order--I listed those teachings only as examples of what EO people accept and believe although they are not taught in Scripture. It's not necessary to explain or justify them.

But since you did give us an overview of the church's thinking, my response to that would be this: if it were true that a member or candidate for membership can let it be known that he does NOT think such a practice is right with God, and the priest and whoever else will take that in stride as being their opinion and it's all right...then that would be significant. But is that so? I get the idea from what you've said about being received into the church, that it's not really all right or a matter of adiaphora with the church.

 

[Albion]

I really can not address your awareness or lack of.

I didn't ask you to judge my awareness. I asked how some doctrine that doesn't have any scriptural--or historical--backing can just be described as being something the Apostles taught but didn't record in writing...and that's all it takes for a church to make it a dogma.

However, as example because you asked;The Orthodox fast on a regular basis. There are numerous references to fasting in scripture but we fast every Wednesday and Friday (with few exceptions).
Why? A Wednesday and Friday fast is not in the New Testament.

That's not a doctrine. It's a practice like naming churches after saints or kneeling at certain times during the worship service.

Again, I'm not referencing the canonization per say, just history and a time line. The Epistles in the New Testament are not written as a "how to conduct church" catechism. Each one was written to address a specific purpose, whether it was correction of something that needed to be addressed (such as 1 Corinthians) or a simple exhortation/greetings.
There's not a section in the NT on; When you baptize, do it this way.
Why? The letters were written to churches that already existed, they had already been taught how to baptize.

Let's face it, that's a custom and an old one, that's all.

And then the church comes along and says that it's what the Apostles did...even though there is absolutely no evidence that that's true.

Yet, we will still see arguments raging about what (or if) there is the proper way to conduct baptisms today.

All of them, to my knowledge, involve references to SCRIPTURE. They're argued, pro and con, on the basis of some guidance from Scripture.

This is the challenge for Sola Scriptura, as it is practiced, maybe not by definition. The Gospels and Epistles that make up the NT came from within Orthodox Tradition, they are not two separate items.

They ARE Bible books, however, so referring to them doesn't do a thing to dispute or discredit Sola Scriptura.

 

[FenderTL5]

I asked how some doctrine that doesn't have any scriptural--or historical--backing can just be described as being something the Apostles taught but didn't record in writing...and that's all it takes for a church to make it a dogma.

"or historical" was not part of your question.
If that is the criteria, I can think of no doctrine/dogma of the Orthodox Church that is not supported by scripture and/or history.

 

[All4Christ]

One comment at this point that I think is in order--I listed those teachings only as examples of what EO people accept and believe although they are not taught in Scripture. It's not necessary to explain or justify them.

But since you did give us an overview of the church's thinking, my response to that would be this: if it were true that a member or candidate for membership can let it be known that he does NOT think such a practice is right with God, and the priest and whoever else will take that in stride as being their opinion and it's all right...then that would be significant. But is that so? I get the idea from what you've said about being received into the church, that it's not really all right or a matter of adiaphora with the church.

When I was received into the church, I did not feel comfortable asking the saints to pray for me. I didn't, however, teach against it. I was received into the church anyways. However, I essentially agreed that I will follow the church's lead, that it is acceptable, but I personally was not comfortable with it. I did not need to actively follow the practice myself. I also didn't need to agree with some of the devotional prayers that are more intense. That said, accepting that asking to the saints to pray for us is an acceptable practice is required. (There are some beliefs that are adiaphora, but the core of that particular belief is not adiaphora).

That said, after immersing myself in the understanding of what the Church really teaches on the matter, I now accept it and do ask for the prayers of the saints. I also ask for prayers from my departed loved ones. I do still skip some prayers, however, that I am not comfortable praying. I figure if I don't understand the context properly, it is tough to pray it with the correct understanding.

 

[Albion]

"or historical" was not part of your question.

I think I did...when I wrote this:

...church says it was part of the faith of the Apostles but yet never written down in any Gospel or Epistle. But is there any evidence of that? None that I am aware of. How about you?

In any case, the question is basic to this discussion. How can any doctrine be justified simply through having the church call it something the Apostles taught...even though there is absolutely no evidence that they did? This is the kind of thing that led the Reformers to support Sola Scriptura. The Church of the West had invented a whole raft of doctrines out of thin air, and each was justified just as you're explaining here, by saying "true, that's not in Scripture, but the Apostles taught it orally, so it's OK."

If that is the criteria, I can think of no doctrine/dogma of the Orthodox Church that is not supported by scripture and/or history.

I named several a few posts back. Substantiate any of them by Scripture or history if you care to.