Sola Scriptura?

[Albion]

Well, Sir, the Orthodox and Catholic experience of salvation doesn't only include one's self and faith in Christ. It's more of an evolving and deepening relationship based on love, renunciation, penance, and holiness, by God's grace, in Christ. As such, we don't go at it alone. We have the Saints to help us to follow Christ, and love one another, through love of Him. It's a Church that lives in Heaven and also on earth. We have each other; those in Heaven still pray for and help those of us still struggling in the flesh.

But IS all that true? It sounds good, and you believe it, but whether or not it's true is of paramount importance, I hope you can agree.

If the belief in most of that comes from something other than Scripture, we feel that it's not as certain as revelation. Much of it, in fact, is not based on anything other than legend and guesswork and violates the church's own standards concerning Tradition.

We believe that God's word is the ultimate determiner of doctrine and the only guide that's commended to us BY Scripture. All the others are of human creation.

Two different paths. Two different perspectives. But there is little doubt that the church by 1500 AD was deeply superstitious, in need of reform, and not at all reluctant to threaten and punish any members who didn't agree to the many man-made teachings that had appeared only in the several centuries prior to the Reformation.

 

[ripple the car]

I hear you. And basically, it's about, for me, at least, trust. In Scripture, of course, but also in the body of Apostolic culture, traditions, theology, experiences, and liturgies that made up the early Christian, Apostolic world that gave us the Scriptures. A culture that we find described and spelled out not only in Scripture but in Patristics, Councils, hymns, theology, and 2,000 years of Christianity.

That's kind of how I see it, anyway.

But IS all that true? It sounds good, and you believe it, but whether or not it's true is of paramount importance, I hope you can agree. If the belief in most of that comes from something other than Scripture, we feel that it's not trustworthy. We believe that God's word is the ultimate determiner of doctrine. Two different routes. Two different perspectives.

 

[~Anastasia~]

That, however, is not the issue with the invocation of the saints and Sola Scriptura.

I'm being told that this is optional, that you are under no obligation to pray to saints. But the real issue concerns whether or not you are expected to believe that it's a proper, valid, effective practice. Does the church take such a stand? Do you believe that the saints CAN intercede for us? If it's the case that the Orthodox church doesn't teach that it's a good, worth, and effective practice, then you're right.

As I understand it, we must accept that the Church is valid in what she teaches. If we believe she is completely wrong, then we shouldn't be joining, for the sake of our own conscience. And the Church would be right to reject us, if she knows we disagree fundamentally.

It reminds me though of when I joined a Baptist denomination. I had to sign a paper promising not to work anywhere that sold alcohol, and probably promised not to drink alcohol either. That's what they believe, and demand.

Every fellowship will certainly reserve for themselves the right to decide what must be agreed to in order to become a member.

All I can tell you is that my priest (and I know others) have specifically affirmed that one may become Orthodox while being not personally accepting of intercessions of the Saints, have every right to refrain from such prayers. But ... there must be the disposition to accept that the Church teaches the truth, yes. I think one way to express that is that we don't put our own opinions over the teaching of the Church. If we do, then we really shouldn't join, should we? Regardless of what fellowship.

Most of that is practiced by Sola Scriptura people, too, most notably Lutherans who, as you know, were the first to assert Sola Scriptura.

True. Afaik, Lutherans regard intercessions of the Saints as allowable, but not required. There is far less emphasis than the EOC places, I think.

Did they believe something important at that early time which is missing from your Bible? If so, what is it and how do we know?

Nothing that comes to mind immediately. My point is that they believed, they practiced, they worshipped, they had community, they did everything WITHOUT the Scriptures.

The Scriptures followed their practice and beliefs, and derived from it, in a sense. They did not base their practice and beliefs on the Scriptures. There weren't any.

Have I said anything like that?

No, of course not. Forgive me, it was just an example, and as extreme as I could imagine, not anything personal.

My point was how divergent beliefs can be, even though Scripture is the supposed only authority. Except it's not ... HOW it is read and interpreted vastly skews doctrine, because we all have the same (NT) Bible.

Of course it's different. On that, I think we all can easily agree.

I think that's the key.

We treat the Scriptures as they are to us ... the Book of the Church, written within the context of the Church, to the Church. It is of course the highest authority, but none of it is of private interpretation, and we hold to that which was delivered by word and by epistle. Scripture does explicitly tell us these things.

Others have a different relationship with Scripture. For many, it was a book received from another time, which they used as a tool in an attempt to understand God's will for the Church and remake the Church in that image. A noble goal - I don't criticize that. But without the context and framework, it was inevitable that various interpretations would follow.

 

[Albion]

As I understand it, we must accept that the Church is valid in what she teaches.

That was my understanding also.

If we believe she is completely wrong, then we shouldn't be joining, for the sake of our own conscience. And the Church would be right to reject us, if she knows we disagree fundamentally.

It reminds me though of when I joined a Baptist denomination. I had to sign a paper promising not to work anywhere that sold alcohol, and probably promised not to drink alcohol either. That's what they believe, and demand.

Every fellowship will certainly reserve for themselves the right to decide what must be agreed to in order to become a member.

As an administrative matter, sure. That's correct. Your church--and most Baptist churches--have statements of principles and so on. BUT what's in them?

Is it a set of basics that come from the Bible...or are they what the church has decided on, including a number of doctrines that are NOT Scriptural? To me, that's a big deal.

All I can tell you is that my priest (and I know others) have specifically affirmed that one may become Orthodox while being not personally accepting of intercessions of the Saints, have every right to refrain from such prayers. But ... there must be the disposition to accept that the Church teaches the truth, yes.

Very well. At least we are on the same page as to what the situation is.

I think one way to express that is that we don't put our own opinions over the teaching of the Church. If we do, then we really shouldn't join, should we? Regardless of what fellowship.

My personal and heartfelt opinion is "no." It's not right to join any church while holding in secret a purpose of evasion like that. It's the same perspective I have about going to communion in another denomination's church when you know that they do not practice open communion. Yet there are plenty of Christians who say--including a number here--that it's perfectly all right to defy all these dos and don'ts and make the decision for oneself.

However, we're off the subject. JOINING is not the real issue. It's whether or not the church's doctrinal standard is right or wrong, which is based to a large extent on what the supporting basis for that standard happens to be.

Afaik, Lutherans regard intercessions of the Saints as allowable, but not required.

Confessional Lutherans reject the practice of praying to the dead. That would be true of almost all Protestants, but the Lutherans are among the one closest to your church in most of those items you mentioned (liturgical calendar, monasticism, etc.), and that's why they got the mention from me.

Nothing that comes to mind immediately. My point is that they believed, they practiced, they worshipped, they had community, they did everything WITHOUT the Scriptures.

If that didn't include anything that isn't now in the Bible, I don't see an issue.

My point was how divergent beliefs can be, even though Scripture is the supposed only authority. Except it's not ... HOW it is read and interpreted vastly skews doctrine, because we all have the same (NT) Bible.

We've been all around that mistake before, so let me try another way to explain it.

Mr. X or Church X says that infant baptism is wrong...and cites a verse from Scripture.
Mr. Y or Church Y says that it is proper...and cites a different one.
They obviously disagree although both are following the guidance of the Bible. They have that much in agreement.
Mr. Z or Church Z says that his church, or St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Ignatius, or an old legend from the early church, or something else claims that baptism must be done standing up (or whatever).

What's the difference between them? Just this--whichever of the first two is correct, they both are using God's word to decide. That's what Sola Scriptura asserts, i.e. go with the highest authority, for God cannot be wrong. We can be, but He cannot be.

So we have to decide which man of the first two understands the Bible correctly. But the third man, Mr. Z, isn't even using it as his sole authority.

The first two men or churches have the METHOD and the SOURCE correct; it's only a matter of knowing which one understand it correctly. The third man or church isn't even relying upon the same method or source.

 

[PeaceB]

That was my understanding also.


As an administrative matter, sure. That's correct. Your church--and most Baptist churches--have statements of principles and so on. BUT what's in them?

Is it a set of basics that come from the Bible...or are they what the church has decided on, including a number of doctrines that are NOT Scriptural? To me, that's a big deal.


Very well. At least we are on the same page as to what the situation is.


My personal and heartfelt opinion is "no." It's not right to join any church while holding in secret a purpose of evasion like that. It's the same perspective I have about going to communion in another denomination's church when you know that they do not practice open communion. Yet there are plenty of Christians who say--including a number here--that it's perfectly all right to defy all these dos and don'ts and make the decision for oneself.

However, we're off the subject. JOINING is not the real issue. It's whether or not the church's doctrinal standard is right or wrong, which is based to a large extent on what the supporting basis for that standard happens to be.


Confessional Lutherans reject the practice of praying to the dead. That would be true of almost all Protestants, but the Lutherans are among the one closest to your church in most of those items you mentioned (liturgical calendar, monasticism, etc.), and that's why they got the mention from me.


If that didn't include anything that isn't now in the Bible, I don't see an issue.


We've been all around that mistake before, so let me try another way to explain it.

Mr. X or Church X says that infant baptism is wrong...and cites a verse from Scripture.
Mr. Y or Church Y says that it is proper...and cites a different one.
They obviously disagree although both are following the guidance of the Bible. They have that much in agreement.
Mr. Z or Church Z says that his church, or St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Ignatius, or an old legend from the early church, or something else claims that baptism must be done standing up (or whatever).

What's the difference between them? Just this--whichever of the first two is correct, they both are using God's word to decide. That's what Sola Scriptura asserts, i.e. go with the highest authority, for God cannot be wrong. We can be, but He cannot be.

So we have to decide which man of the first two understands the Bible correctly. But the third man, Mr. Z, isn't even using it as his sole authority.

The first two men or churches have the METHOD and the SOURCE correct; it's only a matter of knowing which one understand it correctly. The third man or church isn't even relying upon the same method or source.

Both Mr. X and Mr. Y rely on Tradition to tell them what the source is in the first place.

 

[Albion]

Both Mr. X and Mr. Y rely on Tradition to tell them what the source is in the first place.

If the opinion of the early churches and two councils held in the fourth century concerning which books ought to be in the Bible is what you're calling Tradition, you're not referring to any information OTHER THAN Scripture. Obviously that can't be the opposite of "Scripture Alone!"

You're not referring to doctrine at all.

What the Catholic and Orthodox Eastern churches describe with the terms "Tradition" (with a capital "T"), "Holy Tradition," or "Sacred Tradition" is longstanding custom, opinion, or practice believed by them to be an additional source of divine revelation.

"Mr. X and Mr. Y" are not using anything like that.

 

[All4Christ]

If the opinion of the early churches and two councils held in the fourth century concerning which books ought to be in the Bible is what you're calling Tradition, you're not referring to any information OTHER THAN Scripture. Obviously that can't be the opposite of "Scripture Alone!"

You're not referring to doctrine at all.

What the Catholic and Orthodox Eastern churches describe with the terms "Tradition" (with a capital "T"), "Holy Tradition," or "Sacred Tradition" is longstanding custom, opinion, or practice believed by them to be an additional source of divine revelation.

"Mr. X and Mr. Y" are not using anything like that.

Honestly, I don't see how you are coming to the conclusion above ("any information other than Scripture"), unless you are limiting the references of Tradition to the opinions about what is included in the canon. If we trust the people in the Council to be led by the Holy Spirit, why would we not trust them to be led by the Holy Spirit in other matters of faith?

Honest question here for purposes of mutual understanding. I've never heard a satisfactory answer on this point. People have said that the Holy Spirit led them for determining the canon Scripture, but not anything else (authoritatively). What determines that conclusion?

 

[PeaceB]

If the opinion of the early churches and two councils held in the fourth century concerning which books ought to be in the Bible is what you're calling Tradition, you're not referring to any information OTHER THAN Scripture. Obviously that can't be the opposite of "Scripture Alone!"

You're not referring to doctrine at all.

What the Catholic and Orthodox Eastern churches describe with the terms "Tradition" (with a capital "T"), "Holy Tradition," or "Sacred Tradition" is longstanding custom, opinion, or practice believed by them to be an additional source of divine revelation.

"Mr. X and Mr. Y" are not using anything like that.

Merriam Webster: Doctrine: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma Catholic doctrine.

Now, the belief that there are 27 specific writings that are the inspired word of God, and which form a rule of faith by which Christians are to adhere, is certainly a central principle to the Christian faith. If you believe this, then you believe in a doctrine that is found outside of Scripture itself. You know certainly well as I do that Scripture itself does not specify that each of the 27 books are the inspired word of God, and that this belief comes from outside of the Bible itself.

Why is it that you believe that the 27 books of the NT are the inspired word of God, but that the Quran is not? Why is it that you do not believe that 1 Maccabees and the other Deuterocanonical books are the inspired word of God, while the majority of Christians on the planet Earth believe that they are? These beliefs come from outside of Scripture themselves. They are based on tradition, and the belief is a core principle of your faith.

[Staff edit].

 

[~Anastasia~]

As an administrative matter, sure. That's correct. Your church--and most Baptist churches--have statements of principles and so on. BUT what's in them?

Is it a set of basics that come from the Bible...or are they what the church has decided on, including a number of doctrines that are NOT Scriptural? To me, that's a big deal.

Very well. But the Scriptures do not completely and explicitly state everything within the belief set of either the Orthodox or the Baptist in this case.

If your concern is whether or not any given Church includes anything not perfectly articulated, then that's your business. (I'm not being snide.) But frankly, I think if any statement of necessary faith was examined closely by someone of a differing opinion, every single one could be charged with that (unless they don't clearly articulate any real matters of doctrine).

To be honest, I question whether that is even valid. Paul wrote that the Churches should observe those teachings that had been delivered "by word or by epistle" thereby explicitly including the teaching accepted and passed down by the Church which had not been written.

My personal and heartfelt opinion is "no." It's not right to join any church while holding in secret a purpose of evasion like that. It's the same perspective I have about going to communion in another denomination's church when you know that they do not practice open communion. Yet there are plenty of Christians who say--including a number here--that it's perfectly all right to defy all these dos and don'ts and make the decision for oneself.

However, we're off the subject. JOINING is not the real issue. It's whether or not the church's doctrinal standard is right or wrong, which is based to a large extent on what the supporting basis for that standard happens to be.

On the first paragraph we definitely agree. Yes, it may be a bit off-topic, but I'm afraid I often have a roundabout way of making sure I understand exactly what the issues are in the other person's point of view.

Confessional Lutherans reject the practice of praying to the dead. That would be true of almost all Protestants, but the Lutherans are among the one closest to your church in most of those items you mentioned (liturgical calendar, monasticism, etc.), and that's why they got the mention from me.

That may be true, but I was going by what a Lutheran friend told me. I thought it fell under adiphora for them?

If that didn't include anything that isn't now in the Bible, I don't see an issue.

Well, how about this - at the risk of muddying the water. You know we have iconography in our Church. There are Scriptures that support it, somewhat, from the OT, but no explicit instructions. Tradition tells us that we have had ancient icons (first century). The Church has explicitly referred to them in later writings, and we well know a detailed history from a few cenuries later. But what we did not know until fairly recently (in modern times) is that Jewish temples from the time of Christ were covered in iconography. A private church has been uncovered from (I think the 200s) that included iconography (in fact, I can actually recognize the faces of Peter and Paul as the same men I see in newly created icons). And the early Church, being Jews, at first continued Jewish worship and began to modify it into Christian worship from the beginning. So ... with those things, it is extremely likely that early Christians did in fact include iconography in their Churches. But it isn't even mentioned in NT Scripture.

So ... maybe they WERE doing things not even mentioned in Scripture.

We've been all around that mistake before, so let me try another way to explain it.

Mr. X or Church X says that infant baptism is wrong...and cites a verse from Scripture.
Mr. Y or Church Y says that it is proper...and cites a different one.
They obviously disagree although both are following the guidance of the Bible. They have that much in agreement.
Mr. Z or Church Z says that his church, or St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Ignatius, or an old legend from the early church, or something else claims that baptism must be done standing up (or whatever).

What's the difference between them? Just this--whichever of the first two is correct, they both are using God's word to decide. That's what Sola Scriptura asserts, i.e. go with the highest authority, for God cannot be wrong. We can be, but He cannot be.

So we have to decide which man of the first two understands the Bible correctly. But the third man, Mr. Z, isn't even using it as his sole authority.

The first two men or churches have the METHOD and the SOURCE correct; it's only a matter of knowing which one understand it correctly. The third man or church isn't even relying upon the same method or source.

I understand, but I think your analogy is generally incorrect. (It could be more correct in the case of the iconography, though.) There is very little that has NO basis in Scripture. I can't think of anything. Asking intercessions of the Saints is no different. So there is no man Z, or else man Z is essentially one of the other men, interpreting Scripture a certain way. But his interpretation is INFORMED by Tradition, history. And that was my understanding of Luther's intention when he wrote about SS in the first place.

I'm not of course trying to convince you to change your practices. But I'm still trying to understand your premises, since we are talking not about a particular practice (are we?) but rather about how to determine truth?

 

[Tangible]

True. Afaik, Lutherans regard intercessions of the Saints as allowable, but not required.

Well ... sort of. The Lutheran Confessions freely grant that the Church Triumphant prays and intercedes for the Church Militant (and also the Angels). Where we differ is that we do not address our prayers to or through the Saints, but to God alone.

This is because search as we might, we cannot find in scripture a command, a promise and an example related to the invocation of the Saints.

We wouldn't say "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us ..." We would say "Holy Mary, Mother of God, prays for us ..."

 

[All4Christ]

Well ... sort of. The Lutheran Confessions freely grant that the Church Triumphant prays and intercedes for the Church Militant (and also the Angels). Where we differ is that we do not address our prayers to or through the Saints, but to God alone.

This is because search as we might, we cannot find in scripture a command, a promise and an example related to the invocation of the Saints.

We wouldn't say "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us ..." We would say "Holy Mary, Mother of God, prays for us ..."

Based on Luther's prayer (I forget the name), you do allow prayers honoring the saints though, correct? As long as the prayer doesn't have the "(saint name here), pray for me / us"? Such as Luther's Evangelical Praise (I think that is the name)?

ETA: Found it...

"O Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, what great comfort God has shown us in you, by so graciously regarding your unworthiness and low estate. This encourages us to believe that henceforth He will not despise us poor and lowly ones, but graciously regard us also, according to your example."

It seems like a very fine line between the two. From an Orthodox perspective, we would understand "regard" to be similar to "keep us in your thoughts, prayers, etc.). If I understand it correctly, you all consider it to be honor and acknowledgement, not a request?

 

[FenderTL5]

As an administrative matter, sure. That's correct. Your church--and most Baptist churches--have statements of principles and so on. BUT what's in them?

Is it a set of basics that come from the Bible..

I'm not sure if the question was meant to be rhetorical or if you wanted an explanation.
Again, I'm not sure this is the exact answer to your question(s); but at Chrismation I was asked a series of questions (to which the 'proper response was 'yes'). iirc, they included (in effect maybe not verbatim) did I believe the dogmas and canons of the church and did I accept the seven ecumenical councils..
Afterwards, I did have to recite the Nicene Creed.
Link to the Chrismation service, the candidate Affirmation is on page 3. One note: I'm relatively certain that at my Chrismation the question referenced the "seven ecumenical councils" specifically... but I've slept a couple of times since then and my memory may not be as good as it once was.

So, your question would be is there anything extra-Biblical in the canons/dogmas. Well, almost certainly yes there are. Many of the canons deal with the ecclesiology, it's leadership and discipline. I've not read anything that runs counter to scripture. However, I'm not so sure that there really is scripture that deals with the specifics on much of it.

 

[Albion]

Honestly, I don't see how you are coming to the conclusion above ("any information other than Scripture"), unless you are limiting the references of Tradition to the opinions about what is included in the canon.

My point there was that we've been talking about Sola Scripture vs. what the 'catholic' churches such as the RC and EO teach instead. It's not an issue of HOW they arrived at what the Bible consists of. It's an issue of whether the Bible's contents are sufficient and supreme or not.

If we trust the people in the Council to be led by the Holy Spirit, why would we not trust them to be led by the Holy Spirit in other matters of faith?

For one thing, we don't trust them in that way. The two councils that codified the Bible books are not considered to be Ecumenical Councils. In addition, which "other matters" are you referring to, and what is the method by which the 'leading' supposedly takes place? I would not think it reasonable simply to say that whatever the church leaders decree must be on the same level as the word of God, whether or not they claim that the Holy Spirit led them to the doctrine in question (which they always do).

Honest question here for purposes of mutual understanding. I've never heard a satisfactory answer on this point. People have said that the Holy Spirit led them for determining the canon Scripture, but not anything else (authoritatively). What determines that conclusion?

I 'hear' people on CF all the time saying that God spoke to them, spoke to them in a dream, or spoke to them while they were praying...and they are absolutely convinced that this is all they need to decide some very important theological questions. I'm a skeptic when it comes to that sort of thing.

 

[Albion]

So, your question would be is there anything extra-Biblical in the canons/dogmas.

In your church, there are some, yes.

Well, almost certainly yes there are. Many of the canons deal with the ecclesiology, it's leadership and discipline. I've not read anything that runs counter to scripture. However, I'm not so sure that there really is scripture that deals with the specifics on much of it.

This is a tricky area. My church of course has canons, too, and a constitution and by laws. But most of this doesn't break new ground so far as dogmas are concerned. Most of it deals with procedures that are simply a matter of keeping good order in the church. As your source indicates (I think), historical information such as The Didache is an important tool, but that doesn't conflict with Sola Scriptura, even if it did happen to deal with a doctrinal point, such as the administration of baptism, so long as it's an elaboration of or a clarification of what the Bible says.

 

[FenderTL5]

It's an issue of whether the Bible's contents are sufficient and supreme or not..

Sufficient for what?

If you're asking if the Bible is sufficient in providing all we need to know for salvation through faith in Christ, then the answer would be yes. The Apostle Paul said to Timothy, "from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.."
The only scripture needed to meet that criteria is what we would call the Old Testament. You wouldn't even need the NT for scripture to be sufficient there.

If the question goes further (this is an exaggeration on further) such as, is scripture sufficient for instruction on filling out my 1040 long form income taxes - then the answer is no. It does not cover every thing we encounter in life, nor church life.

As for being supreme, I believe that prima scriptura instead of sola scriptura would be the better description as it applies to the Orthodox Church.

 

[Albion]

NM

 

[Albion]

Sufficient for what?

It's sufficient for many things, but in this case I meant that it's believed to be sufficient for the determining of doctrine necessary for salvation..

 

[~Anastasia~]

It's sufficient for many things, but in this case I meant that it's believed to be sufficient for the determining of doctrine necessary for salvation..

It is very sufficient for salvation. Then again, you could probably remove 98% of it and still have enough for salvation.

Since you brought up the intercession of the Saints, that is not necessary for salvation.

On the other hand, how often do we hear someone say that they were opposed to God, but their mother or grandmother "prayed them into faith". In that sense, who knows, without even asking them, very possibly Saints pray for those on earth, and as a result of those prayers, God could grant answers that would help lead one to salvation.


But I didn't think the question was whether or not what is explicitly contained within the Scriptures is sufficient knowledge to bring one to faith?

 

[Albion]

It is very sufficient for salvation. Then again, you could probably remove 98% of it and still have enough for salvation.

Since you brought up the intercession of the Saints, that is not necessary for salvation.

That's a reasonable point. And you're saying the church does not expect that all members will consider praying to the saints to be a correct, God-pleasing, practice?

I have a little difficulty accepting that this is the case. For one thing, if the church approves of it and practices it...what does this say about the attitude of the disbelieving member towards the authority of the church (which point has been explained to me here more that once)?

On the other hand, how often do we hear someone say that they were opposed to God, but their mother or grandmother "prayed them into faith". In that sense, who knows, without even asking them, very possibly Saints pray for those on earth, and as a result of those prayers, God could grant answers that would help lead one to salvation.

The heavenly host do pray for mortals. The question is whether or not it's right for US to pray TO them.

But I didn't think the question was whether or not what is explicitly contained within the Scriptures is sufficient knowledge to bring one to faith?

That's right. It wasn't.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The leading of the Councils by the Holy Spirit wasn't just someone saying "God told me ... "

It was the leaders of the Church gathering together, seeking help from the Holy Spirit, and following His guidance, just as they did in the book of Acts.

The Councils themselves are reflected in Scripture.