Sola Scriptura?

[~Anastasia~]

Sufficiency is a particularly Anglican bugbear.

One of the 39 Articles (which I linked to earlier) says this:

"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

Other things besides Scripture might be good and useful and helpful, but they can never be requisite or necessary. And I think there is a suspicion - if we use your metaphor of a meal - that by allowing things besides Scripture to be "an article of the Faith," we open the door, not only to a more sumptuous meal but also - at least potentially - to something more akin to junk food (I do not mean to imply that anything in Orthodox practice is spiritual junk food, but simply to point out what the concern is).

This way of viewing things provides a reassurance; the Scriptures are enough; in a world of competing traditions, we do not need to buy into anxiety about this or that extra-Scriptural aspect of Tradition in order to be assured of our salvation. We know that we have what we need.

This also allows for a degree of diversity and flexibility. If you and I both hold to some different things which are not in Scripture, I do not need to be concerned that I am condemned for not believing or living as you do; nor do I need to be concerned that you are condemned. If we both hold to what is in Scripture, both of us have enough and we are able to allow each other a degree of freedom.

In trying to remember that Anglicanism is largely contra-Catholicism, this makes sense to me. It is my understanding that Catholicism has many more dogmatic statements, and tends to speak in ways such as insisting that people must believe certain things or be in agreement with them, or else they are condemned. (Or at least have spoken that way in the past.)

In keeping that in mind, I can understand the argument of sufficiency.

But I almost have to shift gears to understand that. Orthodoxy does not teach us to judge anyone's salvation. That is God's right alone.

We don't demand anything for the sake of salvation, except to accept the grace of God. How that plays out is completely between the person and God.

We DO concern ourselves with Truth - Who God is, what Christ has done, and so on. That has been true since the early days of the Church, and is reflected in the Creeds, etc. But that simply doesn't enter into sufficiency for salvation. Romans 2 should be evidence of that.

I appreciate your post. I can understand this being an important issue for Anglicans. More and more this discussion looks to be between Protestants and EO over what really should be between Protestants and Catholics, because many of the points don't really apply between us.



Though, I do have a concern such as A4C voiced. When I was seeking a Church, I paused for a short while in a continuing Anglican parish. But I had the most difficult time getting answers from the priest/rector about their beliefs. He never really would actually say if he/they believed that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ - in any sense - or was truly only symbolic. I wasn't concerned with whether he would give a Catholic, Lutheran, or Methodist understanding, for example, but just whether or not it was the Eucharist in any sense - and he referred me to the Articles, and I never could be sure. God can save whom He wills, but in the practice of the Church, it would seem to me to be important to understand what is believed about something so foundational.

 

[Albion]

The churches that claim tradition have different views of Holy Tradition.

The churches that claim Holy Tradition have different views of what Holy Tradition is teaching them.

One believes that all doctrines and dogmas were given in the apostolic deposit of faith. We can clarify heresies, but cannot develop new doctrines. Praxis may change, but not dogma or doctrines.

The other believes that sacred tradition deepens and matures, allowing development of new dogmas and doctrines. Both call it Holy Tradition (and to an extent they both have the same core), but there is a significant difference.

I disagree because both add doctrines that are not supported by Scripture. So where do they come from? The one church may be out of control while the other is more restrained, but both add doctrines and claim that it's the Apostolic tradition or Holy Tradition or Sacred Tradition which justifies doing so.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I've seen it several times and been told it's not rare.

Yes, I thought I might not have answered that as well as I might have. The point there was that we do not think communion is broken, or should be, if the issue is a non-essential. Rather than use that candles example, I might better have cited something like a disagreement over one of the Marian beliefs or something dealing with the afterlife.

Honestly, I would be shocked to see such a disagreement stop the Liturgy. Sometimes the chapters or choir mess up, and the priest will sing over them to get them to the right place. Sometimes he directs things. But while as A4C says, we are all fallen and anything is possible, I've never seen nor heard of such a thing. If anyone considers it common, there may be a problem in that parish, or folks may misunderstand what is going on.

Communion is broken through the upper levels of the Church. And even then, sometimes I know major transgressions are overlooked for the sake of peace, and given time to work out. I know of only one person who I suppose you could say the Church broke communion with him over his beliefs, and it was because he no longer believed in the Divinity of Christ, or that Christ saves us, so the priest barred him from Communion for his own good while working through the issue. It's not as though parishioners are being excommunicated right and left. Ironically, I know of more disagreement caused by the fact that some high-profile people are NOT excommunicated for their outspoken heretical beliefs.

If you mean the fact that the Orthodox Church is not in communion with various denominations, they are not prevented from becoming Orthodox, but none of them were ever a part of us and had been put out. Only Rome once was a part of us, and she left us.

 

[Albion]

In trying to remember that Anglicanism is largely contra-Catholicism, this makes sense to me.

I wouldn't say it that way. Anglicans consider their church to be as Catholic as the Roman Church and, in fact, it is recognized as exactly that in law (in England). But it's just a point that might be worth mentioning, that's all.

Though, I do have a concern such as A4C voiced. When I was seeking a Church, I paused for a short while in a continuing Anglican parish. But I had the most difficult time getting answers from the priest/rector about their beliefs. He never really would actually say if he/they believed that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ - in any sense - or was truly only symbolic. I wasn't concerned with whether he would give a Catholic, Lutheran, or Methodist understanding, for example, but just whether or not it was the Eucharist in any sense - and he referred me to the Articles, and I never could be sure. God can save whom He wills, but in the practice of the Church, it would seem to me to be important to understand what is believed about something so foundational.

If that's how the conversation went, I would call his response puzzling, frankly. There is absolutely no question but that the church holds to the Real Presence.

 

[All4Christ]

The churches that claim Holy Tradition have different views of what Holy Tradition is teaching them.


I disagree because both add new doctrines. The one may be out of control while the other is more restrained, but both add doctrines that are not Scriptural and claim that it's the Apostolic tradition which justifies doing so.

We believe that those doctrines were there in the apostolic deposit of faith already. Again, we can agree to disagree. My perspective is that not all doctrines in the apostolic deposit of faith were written in scripture. Some were just affirmed / clarified officially on the Ecumenical councils. After the clarification, it should just be reaffirmation - keeping the church on track - not changing it.

What doctrinal or dogmatic changes do you see in the Orthodox Church after the ecumenical councils? One thing to remember is some beliefs are theologumon, and are not official doctrine or dogma. It depends on what it is.

Interesting fact (related but slightly off topic): the dormition of the Theotokos is not dogma, but is definite mystically and liturgically.

 

[Albion]

We believe that those doctrines were there in the apostolic deposit of faith already.

Of course you do. But it's only a theory, just as the Roman Catholic Church will insist that the church universal always believed--and the Apostles taught--that the bishop of Rome was the head of the church universal, beginning with Peter.

What doctrinal or dogmatic changes do you see in the Orthodox Church after the ecumenical councils?

The Ecumenical Councils don't affect this one way or the other. We reformed Christians accept their decisions to the extent that they are a reflection of what Scripture teaches. The Orthodox Eastern churches do hold to doctrines that are not from Scripture, which is the issue that divides us and is focused in this conversation on the term Sola Scriptura.

Specific doctrines include...

The equal authority of Tradition and Scripture
The perpetual virginity of Mary
The Assumption
Prayers to the saints

 

[All4Christ]

Of course you do. But it's only a theory, just as the Roman Catholic Church will insist that the church universal always believed--and the Apostles taught--that the bishop of Rome was the head of the church universal, beginning with Peter.

Yes, you believe it is a theory, we believe it is truth. As you say below, it is the core difference

Even the RCC will say that some doctrines about the Pope developed, particularly about infallibility. They would say the source is in the early church, but there wasn't a dogma about it. They would say it was implicit, not explicit, in the early church. We would agree with the honorific primacy of the Patriarch of Rome (first among equals), but disagree with the developments.

The Ecumenical Councils don't affect this one way or the other. We reformed Christians accept their decisions to the extent that they are a reflection of what Scripture teaches. The Orthodox Eastern churches do hold to doctrines that are not from Scripture, which is the issue that divides us and is focused in this conversation on the term Sola Scriptura.

Again, the core difference and the difference of Sola Scriptura (On the one side of Prima Scriptura) vs Scripture being the most important part of Holy Tradition (the other side of Prima Scriptura).

I know we disagree on this, but I wanted to explain our viewpoint.

 

[Albion]

Yes, you believe it is a theory, we believe it is truth.

The point is that there is no evidence from church history, secular history, scripture, or anything else that verifies it. So it's a theory.

Even the RCC will say that some doctrines about the Pope developed, particularly about infallibility.

True. They will invoke "Development of Doctrine" as a way of denying that they've introduced a new doctrine, but the church still attributes it to Tradition.

They would say the source is in the early church, but there wasn't a dogma about it. They would say it was implicit, not explicit, in the early church.

Yes. They do say that, just as the Orthodox churches say that the doctrines they hold to which are not from Scripture are part of some Apostolic tradition--or simply stipulate that it is the teaching of the Apostles.

I know we disagree on this, but I wanted to explain our viewpoint.

OK.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I wouldn't say it that way. Anglicans consider their church to be as Catholic as the Roman Church and, in fact, it is recognized as exactly that in law (in England). But it's just a point that might be worth mentioning, that's all.


If that's how the conversation went, I would call his response puzzling, frankly. There is absolutely no question but that the church holds to the Real Presence.

Forgive me, I meant contra-the-Catholic-Church, which I thought was a given, considering history?

And yes, I WAS quite puzzled, and put off frankly, if the priest himself seemed reluctant to answer that question. I have since pretty much understood that Anglicans DO believe in the Eucharist, but I have also tried to get answers about many other doctrinal beliefs from Anglicans and, no insult intended, have had much more trouble getting them compared to any other group. I get the impression that Anglicans just naturally embrace a wider range of what is allowed than any other group I considered.

In Orthodoxy, we understand that the beliefs of the Church are like a fence. There ARE boundaries. Within those boundaries, we have a great deal of freedom. Outside of them is considered error. The concept for Anglicanism may well be the same ... just fences placed further apart. I mean no insult, just different ways we seem to look at things. Perhaps Catholics would have more fences in the analogy.

 

[Albion]

Forgive me, I meant contra-the-Catholic-Church, which I thought was a given, considering history?

I know what you meant--the Church of Rome. As I said, we wouldn't word it that way (for several reasons.)

And yes, I WAS quite puzzled, and put off frankly, if the priest himself seemed reluctant to answer that question. I have since pretty much understood that Anglicans DO believe in the Eucharist, but I have also tried to get answers about many other doctrinal beliefs from Anglicans and, no insult intended, have had much more trouble getting them compared to any other group. I get the impression that Anglicans just naturally embrace a wider range of what is allowed than any other group I considered.

We do tolerate or embrace or accept a wider range of belief than many others, I agree. But that's not true across the (doctrinal) board, and it seems to me that what you were asking that priest isn't in the category of "there are different views among our members about that" or anything like it. But I don't know exactly what wording was used, so that's about all I could say in reaction.

In Orthodoxy, we understand that the beliefs of the Church are like a fence. There ARE boundaries. Within those boundaries, we have a great deal of freedom. Outside of them is considered error. The concept for Anglicanism may well be the same ... just fences placed further apart. I mean no insult, just different ways we seem to look at things. Perhaps Catholics would have more fences in the analogy.

That strikes me as a reasonable way to put it.

 

[All4Christ]

Of course you do. But it's only a theory, just as the Roman Catholic Church will insist that the church universal always believed--and the Apostles taught--that the bishop of Rome was the head of the church universal, beginning with Peter.


The Ecumenical Councils don't affect this one way or the other. We reformed Christians accept their decisions to the extent that they are a reflection of what Scripture teaches. The Orthodox Eastern churches do hold to doctrines that are not from Scripture, which is the issue that divides us and is focused in this conversation on the term Sola Scriptura.

Specific doctrines include...

The equal authority of Tradition and Scripture
The perpetual virginity of Mary
The Assumption
Prayers to the saints

Just saw the last part.

The equal authority of Tradition and Scripture

We don't believe this. We believe Scripture is the most important part of Holy Tradition.

The perpetual virginity of Mary: taught in the first centuries of the church

Assumption: Dormition for us. As I mentioned above, it is liturgically and mystically defined. I did not need to agree to it when I joined the church, though it is universally taught that she died and was raised to heaven immediately. Again, first few centuries of church.

Prayer to saints (clarified as requesting intercession of the saints) Also defined in the first few centuries of the church. We have requests for intercession and epitaphs from the very very early church.

 

[Albion]

Just saw the last part.

The equal authority of Tradition and Scripture

We don't believe this. We believe Scripture is the most important part of Holy Tradition.

That's an objection based only on the wording. You do accept that Scripture is not the only source of doctrine. Yes, it's said that the whole thing is incorporated into "Tradition," but there's no doubt that included within it are extra-Scriptural "truths."

The perpetual virginity of Mary: taught in the first centuries of the church

So an addition to the faith that does not have any Scriptural basis.

Assumption: Dormition for us. As I mentioned above, it is liturgically and mystically defined. I did not need to agree to it when I joined the church, though it is universally taught that she died and was raised to heaven immediately. Again, first few centuries of church.

So again, something that is not based on Scripture.

Prayer to saints (clarified as requesting intercession of the saints) Also defined in the first few centuries of the church. We have requests for intercession and epitaphs from the very very early church.

The same as the above.

The examples given were correct, therefore.

 

[All4Christ]

That's an objection based only on the wording. You do accept that Scripture is not the only source of doctrine. Yes, it's said that the whole thing is incorporated into "Tradition," but there's no doubt that included within it are extra-Scriptural "truths."


So an addition to the faith that does not have any Scriptural basis.


So again, something that is not based on Scripture.


The same as the above.

The examples given were correct, therefore.

My question was "what doctrines or dogmas were developed after the ecumenical councils". With that in mind, the examples were not correct (with my question). These doctrines were all defined before the end of the ecumenical councils.

 

[Albion]

My question was "what doctrines or dogmas were developed after the ecumenical councils". With that in mind, the examples were not correct (with my question). These doctrines were all defined before the end of the ecumenical councils.

We're not focused on the ecumenical councils (which you would say are part of Tradition and therefore true but still only part of Tradition).

We're talking about Holy Tradition itself and Sola Scriptura itself.

What the last several posts have established is that we agree that it is correct to say that the churches which hold to the first of these and reject Sola Scriptura do in fact believe and teach doctrines that are extra-Scriptural. The disagreement is real.

 

[All4Christ]

We're not focused on the ecumenical councils (which you would say are part of Tradition and therefore true but still only part of Tradition).

We're talking about Holy Tradition itself and Sola Scriptura itself.

What the last several posts have established is that we agree that it is correct to say that the churches which hold to the first of these and reject Sola Scriptura do in fact believe and teach doctrines that are extra-Scriptural. The disagreement is real.

I agree that the disagreement is real; on that point we can agree. I am not trying to convince you that there is no disagreement.

What I am trying to clarify is the difference between the two approaches to Holy Tradition. The different views make a significant impact on theology.

That said, I am clarifying this due to a consistent pattern of discussion stating that the RCC Holy Tradition and Orthodox Holy Tradition are the same theologically - albeit one more restrained than the other. They are different, which causes the difference in theology.

 

[dzheremi]

Maybe it's because I'm not in communion with either of you, but I don't understand how this conversation is developing.

The Anglican, on the one hand, seems to maintain a division between holy scripture and tradition such that Sola Scriptura allows that tradition be jettisoned should it be found to conflict with scripture (according to...some metric...somewhere; Canterbury?). This would lead me to rhetorically ask -- again, as someone with no dog in this fight -- about all those matters on which scripture does not inform us in enough detail in order to actually run a/the church: how to hold a Christian worship service; how to catechize neophytes; how to "put away an evil person from among [us]"; etc. The question of scripture being sufficient to guide us to salvation is a different one than whether or not it teaches us the "nuts and bolts" of how to exist as communities (and of course, there is the related question of "what is scripture?" and how you know the answer to that, which is not rhetorical). And it seems clear enough that those kinds of issues have been with us from the beginning, given that the apostle St. Paul wrote so many epistles to particular, actually-existing communities in Corinth, Rome, Galatia, etc. concerning how churches and people in them ought to conduct themselves.

The Eastern Orthodox, on the other hand, seem to say that as everything they currently believe and do is what has always been done (everywhere?), therefore there can be no conflict between scripture and tradition in the first place, and positing that one might ever be is tantamount to rejecting the early church itself, since of course we all know that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the sole legitimate representative/continuation of the early Church on the face of God's green earth and throughout the universe, forever and ever, unto the ages of ages, amen.

(Yes. We all know that. All of us do. )

 

[All4Christ]

Maybe it's because I'm not in communion with either of you, but I don't understand how this conversation is developing.

The Anglican, on the one hand, seems to maintain a division between holy scripture and tradition such that Sola Scriptura allows that tradition be jettisoned should it be found to conflict with scripture (according to...some metric...somewhere; Canterbury?). This would lead me to rhetorically ask -- again, as someone with no dog in this fight -- about all those matters on which scripture does not inform us in enough detail in order to actually run a/the church: how to hold a Christian worship service; how to catechize neophytes; how to "put away an evil person from among [us]"; etc. The question of scripture being sufficient to guide us to salvation is a different one than whether or not it teaches us the "nuts and bolts" of how to exist as communities (and of course, there is the related question of "what is scripture?" and how you know the answer to that, which is not rhetorical). And it seems clear enough that those kinds of issues have been with us from the beginning, given that the apostle St. Paul wrote so many epistles to particular, actually-existing communities in Corinth, Rome, Galatia, etc. concerning how churches and people in them ought to conduct themselves.

The Eastern Orthodox, on the other hand, seem to say that as everything they currently believe and do is what has always been done (everywhere?), therefore there can be no conflict between scripture and tradition in the first place, and positing that one might ever be is tantamount to rejecting the early church itself, since of course we all know that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the sole legitimate representative/continuation of the early Church on the face of God's green earth and throughout the universe, forever and ever, unto the ages of ages, amen.


(Yes. We all know that. All of us do. )

I believe the last section is added by you on this point. Honestly, I consider you all to be very accurate on theology, though we disagree on some Christology points in particular. You have been very consistent since the very early church.

"they currently believe and do is what has always been done (everywhere?), therefore there can be no conflict between scripture and tradition in the first place, and positing that one might ever be is tantamount to rejecting the early church itself, since of course we all know that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the sole legitimate representative/continuation of the early Church on the face of God's green earth and throughout the universe, forever and ever, unto the ages of ages, amen."

You are adding a lot into what I said. I can't respond long, but if I sounded prideful in what I wrote, it wasn't intended. If what you wrote is what was conveyed, then my remarks did not come across as desired.

Honestly, if you understand my remarks to mean that, it is seriously disturbing to me. Also, I wasn't contrasting Holy Tradition in the EO Church with the Coptic Orthodox Church.

 

[dzheremi]

All the sections were added by me. It's my post. I don't have a problem with anything you wrote, All4Christ, or for that matter with what Albion wrote. My point was more that, given that you both are convinced of the (singular/unique) correctness of your particular expression of the faith, or if not that at least of its underpinnings, it seems that you two are talking at cross purposes.

 

[All4Christ]

All the sections were added by me. It's my post. I don't have a problem with anything you wrote, All4Christ, or for that matter with what Albion wrote. My point was more that, given that you both are convinced of the (singular/unique) correctness of your particular expression of the faith, or if not that at least of its underpinnings, it seems that you two are talking at cross purposes.

I agree; all of the sections were added by you. However, it seemed like your post was listing the gist of what you got out of our conversation. I had no intention of implying that last part in any of my posts.

Honestly, the last section in particular seems like an unfair (or at least biased / uncalled for) representation of the Eastern Orthodox Church's opinion - and at minimum was not what I tried to convey ("since of course we all know that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the sole legitimate representative/continuation of the early Church on the face of God's green earth and throughout the universe, forever and ever, unto the ages of ages, amen").

That said, I am not trying to convince Albion to change his opinion, but rather explain our perspective. Some statements were made about the EO Church which are not accurate, so I am doing my best to clarify them.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hmmmm.

I was hoping for a voice of sanity, because this discussion really seems to be devolving and much of it seems to need to take place between SS advocates and the Catholic Church ...

But I'm a bit surprised too, dzheremi. I recall on other occasions you've asked me what I meant by aligning our particular communions - Holy Tradition is what it is, and honestly afaik you and we share a great deal. Indeed, Catholics did too for some time, but I think they have reinterpreted and developed it quite a bit.

I see your last post. Maybe that is how you see the discussion between Albion and us as EO. I actually wrote another post, but decided not to send it, because I feel we are not getting anywhere, and it seems we're just starting to contrast one another and point fingers.

It's difficult maybe to express ourselves without someone taking it as triumphalistic. Yes, I believe the Orthodox Church has the records and beliefs she has, and they go back to the sources she recognizes for them. And I've accepted them, one by one, after some research and prayer, etc. But that doesn't mean I can take credit for the Church. Nor do I look down on anyone anywhere else. I think my great-grandmother was a living Saint, and she never heard of Orthodoxy - she spent her life in the Baptist church and produced several children who became Baptist missionaries. Like most Christians, I am pretty sure we all tend to follow God as best we can with where we are - and God has put us all in our places, so who am I to question that?

But on the other hand, I don't think it should insult anyone to point out where we get a particular belief from, etc? I don't understand the controversy.