Patristics on Sola Scriptura?

[Jesus4Madrid]

I apologize for my harsh words before. I spoke (wrote) in frustration and not in charity.

Gotcha. I don't know much about Scandinavian Lutherans, but I do know that German Lutheranism stayed incredibly high-church and liturgical for quite a while. Pastor Weedon, who I cited in the OP (he's the one I got the quotes from) did his studies focused on 16th century liturgical practice and says that it was normal to have all the "bells and smells" of traditional Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy amongst Lutherans.

And yeah, better dialogue between the early Lutherans and the east would have been wonderful...

Fair enough.
Though it is worth noting the (uniquely?) Lutheran distinction between homologomena and antilegomena. But that's for another day as well.

For what it's worth, Calvin acknowledged that his position on the Eucharist was based on both scripture and reason. Ultimately, reason superseded Scripture because the argument became "it's not possible for Christ's body which is in heaven to also be here!"
And I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Zwingli's view was based on a dream which told him that the Eucharist was just spiritual presence of Christ and not his physical, true, body and blood.


Perhaps you can enlighten me. I'm under the impression that the Vincentian Canon is a principle for determining doctrine, that we only accept those things which were believed by all, in all places, at all times. If that's the case, then I'm showing how saintly figures believe something that (to me, initially) seemed to be sola scriptura. If my understanding of Vincentian Canon is correct, that means one of three things (maybe more, idk):

1. sola scriptura was believed by all, in all places, at all times
2. sola scriptura is a view, but not the universal view, in which case neither SS nor the EO view was held by all, in all places, at all times
3. sola scriptura is not what they actually teach in these quotes

Is that not what St Vincent taught? I'm probably mistaken here, because I've never really done a formal study of him or what the Vincentian Canon actually means. So if you can clarify, that'd be great.


You have a good point. Lutherans would probably address this in two ways:

1. Primarily, we would make the homologomena/antilegomena distinction that I mentioned above
2. Secondarily, we might split hairs and say that the church was inerrant but not infallible when it passed on the canon

We recognize the value of tradition, and definitely don't throw it out. We just say that, since the fathers are not always consistent with themselves or each other, we take their teachings with a grain of salt, and if something goes against scripture, we reject it. I think you Orthodox would agree with that in principle, right? But you would, of course, say that we have to take our teachings with a grain of salt, and if something goes against tradition, we should reject our interpretation.

Then again, Lutherans would agree with that in principle too, lol

I'm thinking now that our difference lies in our ecclesiology primarily, not in our hermeneutics. It's not a matter of Scripture vs. Tradition for either of us, it's a question of: "what is the church, and can it have false teachings?" Lutherans would say that it can and point to the errors of Rome. Orthodox can say that it can't.

Ok, thanks for the clarification on the Vincentian Canon. I see what you are saying and it is perfectly logical according to the Canon.

St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. John Damascene are definitely not promulgating Sola Scriptura. They were fully Orthodox in ecclesiology, sacramental theology and liturgy (two of those being authors of our liturgies). One does not arrive theologically at these positions through Sola Scriptura. For example, St. Basil's liturgy drew from Tradition not found in Scripture (especially that of St. James). Likewise, St. John Chrysostom drew from St. Basil.

What they are saying is that Scripture forms a unique material authority with which to judge the orthodoxy of something. There are other Fathers (e.g St. Irenaeus) who say the same. That's not Sola Scriptura. What they are not arguing is the perspicuity of Scripture or the right of an individual's private judgement to trump the formal theological authority of the Church in interpreting Scripture.

It's like saying that the US Constitution is the law of the land in the US--the material authority--but that the Supreme Court is necessary to adjudicate it--the formal authority--when it is unclear. We Orthodox trust the Church to adjudicate Scripture, whereas advocates of Sola Scriptura do not.

I agree that the key difference between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy lies in ecclesiology. I remember reading St. Ignatius of Antioch and thinking "he doesn't understand the teachings of St. Paul" on Church government (Lord have mercy). Accepting that the Church was always hierarchical in ecclesiology was the last big barrier for me on the road to becoming Orthodox. Yes, errors have arisen, even amongst a number Bishops during the Arian controversy, but the "gates of hell shall not prevail" (Mt 16.19).

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Just jumping in here, please forgive me. I'm thankful for the recent tone, btw.

But I'm wondering if "infallibility" as it relates to the Church, in EO understanding, needs to be clarified? I've never actually asked before. I've just gathered that it means something like "there may be disagreements and errors at times (iconoclasm comes to mind), but the Holy Spirit will ensure that the Church continues and is returned to the correct course".

Clearly not everything the Church teaches always is infallible - for a time we had iconoclasm. And clearly the consensus is not always correct - at one point a larger number gave ear to Arius. But the Church is brought back and resstablished in Truth.

Do I have that right???

Seems right to me. I would also note that "infallible" is a word typically used in Western RC contexts. It never appears in the Ecumenical Councils, for example.

I would accept that Holy Tradition is without error, but clearly the Church is temporally fallible, as the examples you cite attest.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Seems right to me. I would also note that "infallible" is a word typically used in Western RC contexts. It never appears in the Ecumenical Councils, for example.

I would accept that Holy Tradition is without error, but clearly the Church is temporally fallible, as the examples you cite attest.

Thanks.

I think I've heard a few use the term, but really in response to Rome, their point being that while Rome invests the Pope with infallibility, we see the Church itself as our safe guide.

But I've never wanted to use the term "infallible". But since I've never asked, I'm not completely sure on the nuances of the nuances of it.

 

[AMM]

Ok, thanks for the clarification on the Vincentian Canon. I see what you are saying and it is perfectly logical according to the Canon.

St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. John Damascene are definitely not promulgating Sola Scriptura. They were fully Orthodox in ecclesiology, sacramental theology and liturgy (two of those being authors of our liturgies). One does not arrive theologically at these positions through Sola Scriptura. For example, St. Basil's liturgy drew from Tradition not found in Scripture (especially that of St. James). Likewise, St. John Chrysostom drew from St. Basil.

What they are saying is that Scripture forms a unique material authority with which to judge the orthodoxy of something. There are other Fathers (e.g St. Irenaeus) who say the same. That's not Sola Scriptura. What they are not arguing is the perspicuity of Scripture or the right of an individual's private judgement to trump the formal theological authority of the Church in interpreting Scripture.

It's like saying that the US Constitution is the law of the land in the US--the material authority--but that the Supreme Court is necessary to adjudicate it--the formal authority--when it is unclear. We Orthodox trust the Church to adjudicate Scripture, whereas advocates of Sola Scriptura do not.

I agree that the key difference between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy lies in ecclesiology. I remember reading St. Ignatius of Antioch and thinking "he doesn't understand the teachings of St. Paul" on Church government (Lord have mercy). Accepting that the Church was always hierarchical in ecclesiology was the last big barrier for me on the road to becoming Orthodox. Yes, errors have arisen, even amongst a number Bishops during the Arian controversy, but the "gates of hell shall not prevail" (Mt 16.19).

Thanks for the clarification. I like the analogy to the Constitution/Supreme Court. And when I reread those quotes I can see how they easily fit in with the Orthodox view - it all comes down to how we can interpret Scripture (because we both place Scripture on the highest tier); thus: ecclesiology.

And yeah it seems as though it probably was hierarchical even in the 1st century. Definitely in the 2nd (Ignatius makes this clear, like you point out). I don't object to a hierarchy (I actually think that's far better than the mess we have in American Confessional Lutheranism), but I have trouble believing that there is a divinely-created distinction between presbyteros and episcopos. Anyway, that's a separate discussion, but one I'll probably ask in TAW about at some point.


Really I should meet with priest in my area, but that would imply that I'm seriously considering (which isn't wrong...) leaving the church body that I've been a part of for 20 years (my whole life), the body that pulled me from agnosticism and the edge of atheism, the body that I've been committed to defending and studying for the past ~4 years, etc. It's a highly emotional experience and somewhat traumatic to think about. Not to go off on a tangent, but my immediate family is all Lutheran too, as well as my mom's whole side of the family (dad's family is catholic). So if I converted, I'd stop going to church with them (well, mostly: I think my mom would follow if I converted but that's a long story), I wouldn't experience advent and the feast of the nativity, I wouldn't be with them during lent, I wouldn't be with them for holy week, I wouldn't be with them for Easter.

Besides that, I only have a couple of EO friends, only 1 of whom lives anywhere near me (we go to university together), so I'd be in an entirely new environment among strangers, turning my back on my Lutheran friends, etc.

Of course, there's that whole Matthew 10:34-39 thing. I know that I am unworthy of Christ. Lord have mercy on me!

Sorry for my emotional outpouring. No one asked, but you got it anyway Pray for me. This is traumatic and (more than) mildly upsetting. More so because I think I may be more orthodox than lutheran at this point, I just don't want to admit it to myself, my priest, my family, my friends, etc.

It'd also through my life goals into shambles, since I want to be a lutheran priest, but if I converted I would not want to seek ordination immediately; I think I would want a few years as a layman first (as per 1 Timothy 3:6), if I ever desired orthodox ordination.

anywho. I've long since strayed from the original topic. Sorry

I would accept that Holy Tradition is without error, but clearly the Church is temporally fallible, as the examples you cite attest.

What's the distinction then? How do we determine what is Holy Tradition and what is the Church teaching error?

I think I've heard a few use the term, but really in response to Rome, their point being that while Rome invests the Pope with infallibility, we see the Church itself as our safe guide.

But I've never wanted to use the term "infallible". But since I've never asked, I'm not completely sure on the nuances of the nuances of it.

At least in the Lutheran definition, "infallible" means that something cannot err. For example, we say Scripture is infallible because the apostles could not teach error in their writings, as they were guided by the Spirit. Distinct to that is "inerrant" which means that it did not err. So if someone like you or I writes a book, for example, and everything in it is correct theology, it's inerrant, because the author could have written something wrong.
That's how we use it. I assume the definition is relatively universal, but could be wrong. Does that help?

 

[All4Christ]

Thanks for the clarification. I like the analogy to the Constitution/Supreme Court. And when I reread those quotes I can see how they easily fit in with the Orthodox view - it all comes down to how we can interpret Scripture (because we both place Scripture on the highest tier); thus: ecclesiology.

And yeah it seems as though it probably was hierarchical even in the 1st century. Definitely in the 2nd (Ignatius makes this clear, like you point out). I don't object to a hierarchy (I actually think that's far better than the mess we have in American Confessional Lutheranism), but I have trouble believing that there is a divinely-created distinction between presbyteros and episcopos. Anyway, that's a separate discussion, but one I'll probably ask in TAW about at some point.


Really I should meet with priest in my area, but that would imply that I'm seriously considering (which isn't wrong...) leaving the church body that I've been a part of for 20 years (my whole life), the body that pulled me from agnosticism and the edge of atheism, the body that I've been committed to defending and studying for the past ~4 years, etc. It's a highly emotional experience and somewhat traumatic to think about. Not to go off on a tangent, but my immediate family is all Lutheran too, as well as my mom's whole side of the family (dad's family is catholic). So if I converted, I'd stop going to church with them (well, mostly: I think my mom would follow if I converted but that's a long story), I wouldn't experience advent and the feast of the nativity, I wouldn't be with them during lent, I wouldn't be with them for holy week, I wouldn't be with them for Easter.

Besides that, I only have a couple of EO friends, only 1 of whom lives anywhere near me (we go to university together), so I'd be in an entirely new environment among strangers, turning my back on my Lutheran friends, etc.

Of course, there's that whole Matthew 10:34-39 thing. I know that I am unworthy of Christ. Lord have mercy on me!

Sorry for my emotional outpouring. No one asked, but you got it anyway Pray for me. This is traumatic and (more than) mildly upsetting. More so because I think I may be more orthodox than lutheran at this point, I just don't want to admit it to myself, my priest, my family, my friends, etc.

It'd also through my life goals into shambles, since I want to be a lutheran priest, but if I converted I would not want to seek ordination immediately; I think I would want a few years as a layman first (as per 1 Timothy 3:6), if I ever desired orthodox ordination.

anywho. I've long since strayed from the original topic. Sorry


What's the distinction then? How do we determine what is Holy Tradition and what is the Church teaching error?


At least in the Lutheran definition, "infallible" means that something cannot err. For example, we say Scripture is infallible because the apostles could not teach error in their writings, as they were guided by the Spirit. Distinct to that is "inerrant" which means that it did not err. So if someone like you or I writes a book, for example, and everything in it is correct theology, it's inerrant, because the author could have written something wrong.
That's how we use it. I assume the definition is relatively universal, but could be wrong. Does that help?

A lot of us here can really empathize with what you are talking about here (emotionally). I spent my whole life in the AoG before I became Orthodox (24 years -with about 5 years of searching), and was the only one in my family to even remotely be in a liturgical church . My family has been Pentecostal for generations on my Dad's side and Anabaptist for generations on my Mom's side. It was a big step and wasn't easy to make - even though I knew Orthodoxy was where I should be. It still is hard to not share Pascha or Nativity services with my family, though I'm thankful they do visit occasionally.

 

[ubicaritas]

"Infallibility" is an issue that is more relevant to western Christianity, and specifically modernity. It's actually more proper to say that western Christianity is more individualistic, and eastern Christianity tends to be "eastern" and group/consensus oriented. The western appeal to individual conscience is a good example of this. Someone like Luther was really as much a product of his culture as much as an heroic figure standing above culture, and you won't find as much of that sort of thing being as deeply rooted in eastern Orthodox lands.

Having said that, I don't think the Lutheran attitude to the Bible and the Orthodox attitudes are necessarily compatible. In Orthodoxy it's more like a hazy image or a spectrum of opinions. You might get an Orthodox Christian agreeing with a Lutheran in theory on the place of the Bible, but in practice it tends to work out differently.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Thanks for the clarification. I like the analogy to the Constitution/Supreme Court. And when I reread those quotes I can see how they easily fit in with the Orthodox view - it all comes down to how we can interpret Scripture (because we both place Scripture on the highest tier); thus: ecclesiology.

And yeah it seems as though it probably was hierarchical even in the 1st century. Definitely in the 2nd (Ignatius makes this clear, like you point out). I don't object to a hierarchy (I actually think that's far better than the mess we have in American Confessional Lutheranism), but I have trouble believing that there is a divinely-created distinction between presbyteros and episcopos. Anyway, that's a separate discussion, but one I'll probably ask in TAW about at some point.


Really I should meet with priest in my area, but that would imply that I'm seriously considering (which isn't wrong...) leaving the church body that I've been a part of for 20 years (my whole life), the body that pulled me from agnosticism and the edge of atheism, the body that I've been committed to defending and studying for the past ~4 years, etc. It's a highly emotional experience and somewhat traumatic to think about. Not to go off on a tangent, but my immediate family is all Lutheran too, as well as my mom's whole side of the family (dad's family is catholic). So if I converted, I'd stop going to church with them (well, mostly: I think my mom would follow if I converted but that's a long story), I wouldn't experience advent and the feast of the nativity, I wouldn't be with them during lent, I wouldn't be with them for holy week, I wouldn't be with them for Easter.

Besides that, I only have a couple of EO friends, only 1 of whom lives anywhere near me (we go to university together), so I'd be in an entirely new environment among strangers, turning my back on my Lutheran friends, etc.

Of course, there's that whole Matthew 10:34-39 thing. I know that I am unworthy of Christ. Lord have mercy on me!

Sorry for my emotional outpouring. No one asked, but you got it anyway Pray for me. This is traumatic and (more than) mildly upsetting. More so because I think I may be more orthodox than lutheran at this point, I just don't want to admit it to myself, my priest, my family, my friends, etc.

It'd also through my life goals into shambles, since I want to be a lutheran priest, but if I converted I would not want to seek ordination immediately; I think I would want a few years as a layman first (as per 1 Timothy 3:6), if I ever desired orthodox ordination.

anywho. I've long since strayed from the original topic. Sorry


What's the distinction then? How do we determine what is Holy Tradition and what is the Church teaching error?


At least in the Lutheran definition, "infallible" means that something cannot err. For example, we say Scripture is infallible because the apostles could not teach error in their writings, as they were guided by the Spirit. Distinct to that is "inerrant" which means that it did not err. So if someone like you or I writes a book, for example, and everything in it is correct theology, it's inerrant, because the author could have written something wrong.
That's how we use it. I assume the definition is relatively universal, but could be wrong. Does that help?

You've got a great story and worthy of sharing. Many of us have been down a similar path.

As some have said, Orthodoxy is like the marines of Christianity and it doesn't appeal to everyone. With all the fasting, praying and long services, it's a challenging choice. Combine that with an entire family from another tradition and one is left with a difficult choice. In my case, faced with a similarly challenging and difficult choice, I only became Orthodox because I felt I had exhausted every other via and that I was really Orthodox even before I became chrismated. So, for me, becoming Orthodox felt like finally coming home after being in the wilderness for too long.

I pray that you would gain a sense of certainty as you consider where you belong. Blessings to you.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thanks for the clarification. I like the analogy to the Constitution/Supreme Court. And when I reread those quotes I can see how they easily fit in with the Orthodox view - it all comes down to how we can interpret Scripture (because we both place Scripture on the highest tier); thus: ecclesiology.

And yeah it seems as though it probably was hierarchical even in the 1st century. Definitely in the 2nd (Ignatius makes this clear, like you point out). I don't object to a hierarchy (I actually think that's far better than the mess we have in American Confessional Lutheranism), but I have trouble believing that there is a divinely-created distinction between presbyteros and episcopos. Anyway, that's a separate discussion, but one I'll probably ask in TAW about at some point.


Really I should meet with priest in my area, but that would imply that I'm seriously considering (which isn't wrong...) leaving the church body that I've been a part of for 20 years (my whole life), the body that pulled me from agnosticism and the edge of atheism, the body that I've been committed to defending and studying for the past ~4 years, etc. It's a highly emotional experience and somewhat traumatic to think about. Not to go off on a tangent, but my immediate family is all Lutheran too, as well as my mom's whole side of the family (dad's family is catholic). So if I converted, I'd stop going to church with them (well, mostly: I think my mom would follow if I converted but that's a long story), I wouldn't experience advent and the feast of the nativity, I wouldn't be with them during lent, I wouldn't be with them for holy week, I wouldn't be with them for Easter.

Besides that, I only have a couple of EO friends, only 1 of whom lives anywhere near me (we go to university together), so I'd be in an entirely new environment among strangers, turning my back on my Lutheran friends, etc.

Of course, there's that whole Matthew 10:34-39 thing. I know that I am unworthy of Christ. Lord have mercy on me!

Sorry for my emotional outpouring. No one asked, but you got it anyway Pray for me. This is traumatic and (more than) mildly upsetting. More so because I think I may be more orthodox than lutheran at this point, I just don't want to admit it to myself, my priest, my family, my friends, etc.

It'd also through my life goals into shambles, since I want to be a lutheran priest, but if I converted I would not want to seek ordination immediately; I think I would want a few years as a layman first (as per 1 Timothy 3:6), if I ever desired orthodox ordination.

anywho. I've long since strayed from the original topic. Sorry

I hear you on this. as someone whose family was Episcopal for many generations, and whose ancestor was an important theologian at the turn of the 20th century, I know how rough this can be. you have my prayers.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Having said that, I don't think the Lutheran attitude to the Bible and the Orthodox attitudes are necessarily compatible. In Orthodoxy it's more like a hazy image or a spectrum of opinions. You might get an Orthodox Christian agreeing with a Lutheran in theory on the place of the Bible, but in practice it tends to work out differently.

yeah, no. there is nothing hazy about where Orthodox Christianity places the Bible. people within the Church might have opinions, but that does not mean the Church is hazy at all.

 

[AMM]

Having said that, I don't think the Lutheran attitude to the Bible and the Orthodox attitudes are necessarily compatible. In Orthodoxy it's more like a hazy image or a spectrum of opinions. You might get an Orthodox Christian agreeing with a Lutheran in theory on the place of the Bible, but in practice it tends to work out differently.

Yeah, I'm gonna side with ArmyMatt on this one. I thought that before too, it seemed like all things Orthodox were not actually well-defined, there was a bunch of grey areas, they didn't care about anything besides the nicene creed, the filioque, leavened bread, and Palamas. But the more that I've read and learned and dialogued with Orthodox people, the more I've come to realize that that's far from the truth. Orthodoxy isn't vague, it's just non-scholastic.

Not to mention that the same can be said about Lutherans. In theory we all agree on the book of concord, or at least the Augsburg Confession. In practice it's a completely different story. You've got to be sure you compare Orthodox ideals with Lutheran ideals, and Orthodox realities with Lutheran realities.

You've got a great story and worthy of sharing. Many of us have been down a similar path.

As some have said, Orthodoxy is like the marines of Christianity and it doesn't appeal to everyone. With all the fasting, praying and long services, it's a challenging choice. Combine that with an entire family from another tradition and one is left with a difficult choice. In my case, faced with a similarly challenging and difficult choice, I only became Orthodox because I felt I had exhausted every other via and that I was really Orthodox even before I became chrismated. So, for me, becoming Orthodox felt like finally coming home after being in the wilderness for too long.

I pray that you would gain a sense of certainty as you consider where you belong. Blessings to you.

Thank you. I'd also like to point out that if I had joined the military (I can't because of a neuro-muscular condition I have) I definitely would have gone into the marines... So I'm not sure what that means for this analogy haha

I hear you on this. as someone whose family was Episcopal for many generations, and whose ancestor was an important theologian at the turn of the 20th century, I know how rough this can be. you have my prayers.

Thank you. I greatly appreciate all y'all's prayers.

 

[rakovsky]

I posted yesterday making the claim that Luther's sola scriptura understanding is a result of the filioque. To very briefly summarize for those who didn't see: filioque demotes Spirit. Pope replaces Spirit. Luther replaces Pope with Scripture as guide and norm for truth. I concluded my post by saying:

"Of course, this still presents the problem of going against all the Church Father statements that seem to pretty clearly argue for Scripture alone (in the Lutheran understanding not the dreadful generic protestant view)... so again I'm at a slight impasse."

I'd like to share some of those quotes with you all, and I want to know how you interpret them. If you believe them to be out of context, please show me. If you believe that these same fathers also have quotes supporting the EO understanding of Scripture/Tradition/Church/etc., please show me. I'm not intending to debate what the proper understanding of them is, nor do I want to debate the solas.

FWIW I believe the traditional Lutheran understanding is similar though not identical to the Orthodox teaching on this matter

Quotes taken from Fr. Weedon's blog (here) a couple years ago, a Lutheran priest who almost went East. Fathers quoted include John Chrysostom, Gregory Nyssa, Basil the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, and John Damascene.

The thread raises a couple basic issues:

1. Does Sola Scriptura result from the Filioque
2. What was Luther's understanding of Sola Scriptura
3. What is the EO view on the topic
4. Did Church Fathers teach Sola Scriptura?

1. The Filioque is ambiguous, and can mean that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in the sense in the Gospels that Jesus sends the Spirit onto His followers. This version would go along with Orthodoxy. Even if the Filioque meant that the Spirit's source was in the Son, one would not have to choose to replace the guiding divine Holy Spirit with the Pope or the Bible. The RCs and EOs all consider the Holy Spirit a divine "guide", whereas RCs also have the Pope in this picture, seeing the Pope as an institutional guide who can at times speak infallibly.

2. I gathered a big collection of all of Luther's uses of terms like Sola Scriptura that I found.

It turns out that Luther's idea on the topic was that in practice you should use Commentaries and Dictionaries and get the Bible's "pure" meaning. Then, supposedly the Bible's facts and principles establish other teachings, directly or indirectly, and also verifies whether teachings are correct. He theorized that in this case, it's really "only" the Bible that is establishing the teachings as Biblical. eg. Although the Bible never explicitly or specifically teaches Infant Baptism, Luther would still perceive the Bible as taking a position on the topic indirectly.

One of his most formal statements on the topic might be:

"For it will not do to frame articles of faith from the works or words of the holy Fathers; otherwise their kind of fare, of garments, of house, etc., would have to become an article of faith, as was done with relics. [We have, however, another rule, namely] The rule is: The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel." (Martin Luther, 1537, Smalcald Articles II, 15.)

While the term "Articles of Faith" might sound here like Luther might be talking just about compulsory dogmas, Luther repeatedly talked this way about using the Bible to evaluate and make all religious teachings.

Later Lutherans wrote similarly in the Formula of Concord:

“We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 3). “The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9).

Luther's reasoning has a couple fallacies here. For example, if the Angel Gabriel gave the Annunciation by announcing to Mary her miraculous birthgiving, Luther's way of looking at doctrine would claim that it was the "Bible Alone" that established the Annunciation, and "not even an angel" did so, the angel in this case being Gabriel. However, this is a false dichotomy. In reality, the Bible and Gabriel both established the Annunciation.

Likewise, if you have to rely on Dictionaries, clear Bible verses, and Commentaries to get the Bible's teaching on a topic, and then you follow the Bible's teaching, then De Facto all of these sources are "establishing" what the Bible teaches, and hence its not "really" the Bible Alone that establishes the teaching. Instead, the Dictionaries and Commentaries are a practically necessary component and tool that you use with the Bible, and thus all of them are actually establishing your teachings. If the Bible says to do X, and need a Dictionary to establish the meaning of X, then in reality both the Bible and the Dictionary are establishing what you are doing.

A practical problem that I see with Sola Scriptura's theoretical outcome, is that it would not allow for teachings that could not be established with the pure meaning of the Bible alone. The best example that comes to my mind is specific extrabiblical events. A common Protestant idea is that 10 of the 12 Disciples were martyred fatally, but this specific history is not narrated in the Bible. In the Augsburg Confessions, Articles XV and XXI, Luther approves of commemorating holidays and saints, so long as the commemorations are made voluntary. He notes that the Bible doesn't say where Peter or James are buried, so certainly he doesn't count the saints' extrabiblical lives and fates as being established by the Bible. There are at least a couple Lutheran parishes named St. Augustine. Certainly, the Bible Alone, in its "pure" meaning, cannot establish Augustine's life and writings. To teach the extrabiblical lives of saints and commemorate them would violate the boundaries of "Sola Scriptura."

3. The EO Church doesn't teach Luther's specific Bible Alone doctrine-making claim, that is, his theory about how to establish doctrines. The Bible never says that "the Bible Alone" judges all teachings and teachers and makes all doctrines. As a result, I think that conceivably in the Orthodox Church you can have extrabiblical "teachings". The EO Church has "teachings" about extraBiblical saints, as it seems that the Lutherans do with St Augustine.

4. Even if you found a quote from a Church father that affirmed what would be Luther's particular claimed method for arriving at all teachings, you would still need a major selection of quotes from Church Fathers to establish that Sola Scriptura was "the" teaching of Orthodoxy, as opposed to just some Fathers' idea. In any case, I have Sola Scriptura advocates give lots of quotes from the Bible and the Fathers that they claim means Sola Scriptura, but on careful analysis actually does not.

Sola Scriptura is a specific doctrine claiming that the Bible Alone judges and establishes all teachings. So even if you can find quotes approving of the Bible as infallible or as the highest judge, the quotes still do not mean that the Bible Alone is the "only" judge as Luther claimed.

So for example, you quoted:

"It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments." St. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 2

At first, it sounds like it could mean Sola Scriptura. But on careful critical analysis, it does not mean that.

Just because you couldn't understand anything about God beyond what is proclaimed by the Bible does not mean that the Bible is the only judge of those things that are in the Bible.

Example: The Bible teaches that God is in the heavens. However, the Fathers also say this. Even if you couldn't understand anything about this beyond God being in the heavens, this would not stop the Fathers from being a supportive judge of this teaching.

The Bible can proclaim explicitly that God is in the heavens, and without going beyond the proclamation of God being in the heavens, the Fathers can explain what the Bible is indirectly proclaiming. St John Damascene does not say that the Fathers cannot explain the meaning of the Bible's proclamation, nor that explaining the meaning of a proclamation goes beyond the proclamation, nor that they can only teach the literal meaning, but he only writes that they can't go beyond the proclamation.