Did the Fathers Teach ‘Bible Alone’?

[Michie]

Some Protestants say yes. The Fathers' writings say no.​

Perspicuity is the Protestant doctrine that Holy Scripture is clear enough that any humble, prayerful Christian, regardless of academic pedigree, intellectual ability, or ecclesial authority, is able to understand what is necessary for salvation. But did the Church Fathers teach this doctrine?

This has been perhaps the most frequentresponse to my 2023 book The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity, in which I present the various philosophical, theological, historical, and sociological problems with the doctrine. If the Church did teach the doctrine of perspicuity, it would certainly undermine, though not necessarily cripple, the thesis of my book. So let’s examine the evidence.

When Protestants argue that the Church Fathers did in fact teach biblical perspicuity, they will appeal to quotations from several Fathers that seem to affirm the clarity of Scripture. Here I’ll cite some of the most common.

St. Ireaneus in Against Heresies declares,

When . . . they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition (3.2.1).

Similarly, in St. Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine, we read this:

Continued below.

Did the Fathers Teach ‘Bible Alone’?

Protestants sometimes argue that the Church Fathers taught perspicuity, the idea that Scripture is clear enough not to need an authoritative interpreter.

www.catholic.com

 

[The Liturgist]

Some Protestants say yes. The Fathers' writings say no.​

Perspicuity is the Protestant doctrine that Holy Scripture is clear enough that any humble, prayerful Christian, regardless of academic pedigree, intellectual ability, or ecclesial authority, is able to understand what is necessary for salvation. But did the Church Fathers teach this doctrine?

This has been perhaps the most frequentresponse to my 2023 book The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity, in which I present the various philosophical, theological, historical, and sociological problems with the doctrine. If the Church did teach the doctrine of perspicuity, it would certainly undermine, though not necessarily cripple, the thesis of my book. So let’s examine the evidence.

When Protestants argue that the Church Fathers did in fact teach biblical perspicuity, they will appeal to quotations from several Fathers that seem to affirm the clarity of Scripture. Here I’ll cite some of the most common.

St. Ireaneus in Against Heresies declares,


Similarly, in St. Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine, we read this:

Continued below.

Did the Fathers Teach ‘Bible Alone’?

Protestants sometimes argue that the Church Fathers taught perspicuity, the idea that Scripture is clear enough not to need an authoritative interpreter.

www.catholic.com

This is very important, because the concept of the Perspicuity of Scripture is itself directly contrary to the plain meaning of Scripture.

Also it is worth noting that this idea, which was alien to Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer and the other traditional Protestants, is what separates the Radical Reformation and Restorationist churches from those of our traditional Protestant friends, and their understanding of Sola Scriptura.

Indeed I think if there is one commonality that unites the different churches whose members constitute the majority of the Traditional Theology community here, it is a rejection of the idea of Perspicuity of Scripture coupled with an embrace of liturgical and sacramental worship.

 

[Clare73]

Some Protestants say yes. The Fathers' writings say no.​

If that were the case, God would not have appointed teachers to the church (1 Co 12:38).

Perspicuity is the Protestant doctrine that Holy Scripture is clear enough that any humble, prayerful Christian, regardless of academic pedigree, intellectual ability, or ecclesial authority, is able to understand what is necessary for salvation. But did the Church Fathers teach this doctrine?
This has been perhaps the most frequentresponse to my 2023 book The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity, in which I present the various philosophical, theological, historical, and sociological problems with the doctrine. If the Church did teach the doctrine of perspicuity, it would certainly undermine, though not necessarily cripple, the thesis of my book. So let’s examine the evidence.

When Protestants argue that the Church Fathers did in fact teach biblical perspicuity, they will appeal to quotations from several Fathers that seem to affirm the clarity of Scripture. Here I’ll cite some of the most common.

St. Ireaneus in Against Heresies declares,


Similarly, in St. Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine, we read this:

Continued below.

Did the Fathers Teach ‘Bible Alone’?

Protestants sometimes argue that the Church Fathers taught perspicuity, the idea that Scripture is clear enough not to need an authoritative interpreter.

www.catholic.com

 

[HarleyER]

This is very important, because the concept of the Perspicuity of Scripture is itself directly contrary to the plain meaning of Scripture.

Also it is worth noting that this idea, which was alien to Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer and the other traditional Protestants, is what separates the Radical Reformation and Restorationist churches from those of our traditional Protestant friends, and their understanding of Sola Scriptura.

Indeed I think if there is one commonality that unites the different churches whose members constitute the majority of the Traditional Theology community here, it is a rejection of the idea of Perspicuity of Scripture coupled with an embrace of liturgical and sacramental worship.

Also it is worth noting that this idea, which was alien to Martin Luther,

Wrong....

Martin Luther, 16th-century monk and figurehead of the Protestant Reformation, stated that "a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it". The intention of the Reformation was thus to correct what he asserted to be the errors of the Catholic Church, by appealing to the uniqueness of the Bible's textual authority. Catholic doctrine is based on sacred tradition, as well as scripture. Sola scriptura rejected the assertion that infallible authority was given to the magisterium to interpret both Scripture and tradition.

Sola scriptura, however, does not ignore Christian history, tradition, or the church when seeking to understand the Bible. Rather, it sees the church as the Bible's interpreter, the regula fidei (embodied in the ecumenical creeds) as the interpretive context, and scripture as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice. As Luther said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so."

Sola scriptura - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Scriptures are not subservient to the Church authority. Rather the Church is bound to the authority of the Scriptures.

 

[The Liturgist]

@HarleyER

Before I reply to your post, I would request that you confirm you have read the Statement of Purpose for this Traditional Theology subforum:

Statement of Purpose - Traditional Theology Statement of Purpose

That being said, you should also be aware that neither I nor the OP was objecting to Sola Scriptura, but rather to the idea of Perspicuity of Scripture, which is something completely different.

 

[HarleyER]

@HarleyER

Before I reply to your post, I would request that you confirm you have read the Statement of Purpose for this Traditional Theology subforum:

Statement of Purpose - Traditional Theology Statement of Purpose

That being said, you should also be aware that neither I nor the OP was objecting to Sola Scriptura, but rather to the idea of Perspicuity of Scripture, which is something completely different.

Thank you very much for your post. As requested I read through the Statement of Purpose.

You will please note that in Post #2 you stated the following:

Also it is worth noting that this idea, which was alien to Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer and the other traditional Protestants, is what separates the Radical Reformation and Restorationist churches from those of our traditional Protestant friends, and their understanding of Sola Scriptura.​

​

I happened to state in Post #6 this was incorrect. Since this is a respectful discussion of traditional, historical theology and doctrine, I am sure you would appreciate being technically accurate in claims about historical theology and doctrine of Martin Luther and his understanding of Sola Scriptura.

As you pointed out, Sola Scriptura is different from Perspicuity of Scripture. Where Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone, Perspicuity of Scripture is a word that means “clarity” or “clearness” or “understandability.” So when we talk about the “perspicuity” of Scripture, we’re talking about the idea that God’s Word is clear about things that are necessary to be understood and obeyed in order for a person to be saved. The Bible’s teaching on salvation can be understood by anyone and everyone.

Perhaps I misread what you were stating but your statement leaves me confused. Are you saying that Perspicuity of Scripture (the idea that God's Word is clear on salvation) was alien to Martin Luther? Is that correct? What exactly was alien to Martin Luther?

 

[The Liturgist]

Thank you very much for your post. As requested I read through the Statement of Purpose.

You will please note that in Post #2 you stated the following:

Also it is worth noting that this idea, which was alien to Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer and the other traditional Protestants, is what separates the Radical Reformation and Restorationist churches from those of our traditional Protestant friends, and their understanding of Sola Scriptura.​

​

I happened to state in Post #6 this was incorrect. Since this is a respectful discussion of traditional, historical theology and doctrine, I am sure you would appreciate being technically accurate in claims about historical theology and doctrine of Martin Luther and his understanding of Sola Scriptura.

As you pointed out, Sola Scriptura is different from Perspicuity of Scripture. Where Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone, Perspicuity of Scripture is a word that means “clarity” or “clearness” or “understandability.” So when we talk about the “perspicuity” of Scripture, we’re talking about the idea that God’s Word is clear about things that are necessary to be understood and obeyed in order for a person to be saved. The Bible’s teaching on salvation can be understood by anyone and everyone.

Perhaps I misread what you were stating but your statement leaves me confused. Are you saying that Perspicuity of Scripture (the idea that God's Word is clear on salvation) was alien to Martin Luther? Is that correct? What exactly was alien to Martin Luther?

Very good, as promised, I am drafting a reply explaining my considered opinion, as a scholar of divinity, on the matter.

While I prepare the response, I would ask you to please remove this statement, in the interests of respectful dialogue and exchange of ideas:

The author might have found it useful to Wikipedia as a source.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't see the NT writers quoting many sources outside of Scripture... they used the (Hebrew) bible, alone.

I never cared much for when people "cite precedents" as some authoritative end all/be all, type of thing. Citing a bad example or ruling (in law), just leads to more of the same. For me, citing "church fathers" has its place, but not for determining "what is True".

From a Lutheran...

It is very clear that outside the "Church" Scripture is not always enough as all here can attest to the fact that there are many instances where misinterpretation and misapplication of Scripture show up.

Such is why we confessional Lutherans have retained our Book of Concord. Many times the ECFs, The Bible, and other sources are sited, not to establish doctrines and dogmatics, but to support those derived by from Scripture.

 

[HarleyER]

Very good, as promised, I am drafting a reply explaining my considered opinion, as a scholar of divinity, on the matter.

While I prepare the response, I would ask you to please remove this statement, in the interests of respectful dialogue and exchange of ideas:

Thank you. Yes I have removed the offenseive statement.

I await your clarification on this matter.

 

[eleos1954]

Just to check, have the two of you familiarized yourself with the Statement of Purpose for the Traditional Theology subforum?

Statement of Purpose - Traditional Theology Statement of Purpose

Traditional Theology -- A forum dedicated to the respectful discussion of traditional, historic theology; liturgical practices, doctrines, dogmatics; Holy Scripture as found in the various canons of the Church; Church History; classic confessions of the faith, etc. Definition of Traditional...

www.christianforums.com

Noted ... sorry ... will be more mindful of it.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

A clean up was done. The Statement of Purpose for this forum has:
​

Traditional Christians hold to the traditional beliefs and customs of the early church that Jesus Christ established and believe they should be acknowledged and used in the development of the Church today. Traditional Christians believe that the Church and associated Tradition - especially from the Apostolic / early Church - guide us even today. These traditions include sources such as church councils and creeds, writings of the early Church Fathers, testimony of the Lives of the Saints, classic confessions of the faith, etc. Many traditional Christians believe that each Christian is involved in a movement toward God, commonly known as theosis or sanctification. Traditional Christians recognize a variety of sacraments and sacramental acts including, but not limited to; Baptism, Holy Communion (Eucharist), Confession and Absolution, Chrismation (confirmation) etc., and consider them to be additional means whereby God imparts His grace on those who have faith.​

​

Example denominations include, but are not limited to, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, Anglicans, Assyrian Church of the East, etc.​

​

​

​

To put it more plainly, this forum is for those who are not Scripture alone but are Tradition&Scripture to discuss aspects of their faith without having to defend their views regarding Traditiion. ​

So if you are not Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican or traditional Lutheran, or in the Assyrian Church of the East, this isn't the forum you should be debating in. ​

 

[The Liturgist]

Thank you very much for your post. As requested I read through the Statement of Purpose.

You will please note that in Post #2 you stated the following:

Also it is worth noting that this idea, which was alien to Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer and the other traditional Protestants, is what separates the Radical Reformation and Restorationist churches from those of our traditional Protestant friends, and their understanding of Sola Scriptura.​

​

I happened to state in Post #6 this was incorrect. Since this is a respectful discussion of traditional, historical theology and doctrine, I am sure you would appreciate being technically accurate in claims about historical theology and doctrine of Martin Luther and his understanding of Sola Scriptura.

As you pointed out, Sola Scriptura is different from Perspicuity of Scripture. Where Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone, Perspicuity of Scripture is a word that means “clarity” or “clearness” or “understandability.” So when we talk about the “perspicuity” of Scripture, we’re talking about the idea that God’s Word is clear about things that are necessary to be understood and obeyed in order for a person to be saved. The Bible’s teaching on salvation can be understood by anyone and everyone.

Perhaps I misread what you were stating but your statement leaves me confused. Are you saying that Perspicuity of Scripture (the idea that God's Word is clear on salvation) was alien to Martin Luther? Is that correct? What exactly was alien to Martin Luther?

So, as promised, the reason why I reject your argument as eisegesis of an off-hand remark by Martin Luther is that it is inconsistent with what he actually did in implementing Sola Scriptura, which was to formulate the Book of Concord, insist on the continued recitation of the Apostles Creed, NIcene Creed and Athanasian Creed, translate the Bible into vernacular German, and continue to celebrate the Mass in both Latin and German, while continuing to teach doctrines such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Perspicuity of Scripture implies that the clear meaning of Scripture should be obvious to everyone, but Luther’s experience with other reformers such as the Calvinists and Zwinglians at the Marburg Colloquy proved this was not the case. And the teaching authority of the Church, which he maintained was important, was furthermore emphasized by the emergence of the Radical Reformation, which in Germany chiefly manifested itself in the form of the Anabaptists, although there were other groups as well, all of which were extremely anti-Catholic and anti-Lutheran, and Martin Luther’s opinion of these groups can be characterized as unfavorable, which I say with a level of understatement that I think even our English members would approve of. I think it would be fair to say Martin Luther was as opposed to the Anabaptists as to the Pope of Rome, and Perspicuity of Scripture was clearly an Anabaptist position.

That said, I would go so far as to argue that only the Radical Reformation was teaching perspicuity of Scripture and Sufficiency of Scripture, and I would also argue that the Anabaptists stopped short of the Nuda Scriptura position embraced by many evangelicals and fundamentalists at present, for despite their contempt of the ecclesiastical authority of the Lutheran and Calvinist state churches, the Anabaptists still had bishops and ecclesiastical authority exercised communally, albeit outside the formal churches following the doctrines of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and the other Magisterial Reformers, who are called Magisterial precisely because they maintained a teaching authority, in addition to preserving those parts of the Catholic and Patristic heritage they deemed fit (of which at the time I think Luther did the best job.

For that matter, I really wish the Czech Unitas Fratrum had been more successful, as that would have restored Orthodoxy to the West and made the Reformation unnecessary, and would likely have prevented the rise of the more extreme forms of it, since the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, while experiencing misguided missionary activity in their territories, have never experienced an organic home-grown equivalent of the Protestant Reformation, rather, the majority of schisms experienced by the Orthodox are in resistance to threats to church tradition, such as the adoption of the Revised Julian Calendar or the attempted suppression in the late 17th and 18th centuries of the Russian Old Rite, these two events collectively accounting for the majority of schisms against the Orthodox. As it happened, the surviving Moravians wound up on the estate of Zinzendorf, who did save their life, and who was a decent man, but he was also radically Pietist and had some strange ideas, which adversely impacted the Moravian church and ultimately led to John Wesley being alienated from it.

Failing that, I will say it is a pity that Lutheran Orthodoxy was not universally adopted, and also that Martin Luther himself did not live long enough to supervise the spectacularly failed dialogue with Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople. The Lutherans should also probably have reached out to the Muscovites, as the Russians had much more fruitful relations with the high church Anglicans, and benefitted from not having their Patriarch serve a dual ecclesiastical and secular role as the Ethnarch of the Romioii people before the Sublime Porte (the court of the Turkish Sultan). The Slavic Orthodox and also the Antiochians (Syrian Eastern Orthodox) have historically always been more willing to work with outsiders and to accommodate them, as demonstrated by the fact that the Western Rite Orthodox movement originated largely as a result of St. Tikhon, as Metropolitan of New York, getting the Holy Synod back in Russia (over which he would later preside as the first Patriarch since the illegal suppression of the office by Peter “the Great”, before his arrest in the 1920s and subsequent death under conditions of poor treatment) to review the Anglican liturgy and determine the required modifications so that American converts to Orthodoxy could continue to use it. And to this day, Western Rite Orthodoxy is primarily associated with ROCOR (the autonomous Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) and the Antiochian Orthodox Church, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, even, disappointingly, including Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, has always opposed it. They also were unhelpful when the Evangelical Orthodox Church wanted to convert to Orthodoxy, since the EP insisted that the EOC clergy commit themselves to “spreading Hellenic culture.” So the EOC guys wound up mostly being received by Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch, memory eternal.

 

[HarleyER]

So, as promised, the reason why I reject your argument as eisegesis of an off-hand remark by Martin Luther is that it is inconsistent with what he actually did in implementing Sola Scriptura, which was to formulate the Book of Concord, insist on the continued recitation of the Apostles Creed, NIcene Creed and Athanasian Creed, translate the Bible into vernacular German, and continue to celebrate the Mass in both Latin and German, while continuing to teach doctrines such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Perspicuity of Scripture implies that the clear meaning of Scripture should be obvious to everyone, but Luther’s experience with other reformers such as the Calvinists and Zwinglians at the Marburg Colloquy proved this was not the case. And the teaching authority of the Church, which he maintained was important, was furthermore emphasized by the emergence of the Radical Reformation, which in Germany chiefly manifested itself in the form of the Anabaptists, although there were other groups as well, all of which were extremely anti-Catholic and anti-Lutheran, and Martin Luther’s opinion of these groups can be characterized as unfavorable, which I say with a level of understatement that I think even our English members would approve of. I think it would be fair to say Martin Luther was as opposed to the Anabaptists as to the Pope of Rome, and Perspicuity of Scripture was clearly an Anabaptist position.

That said, I would go so far as to argue that only the Radical Reformation was teaching perspicuity of Scripture and Sufficiency of Scripture, and I would also argue that the Anabaptists stopped short of the Nuda Scriptura position embraced by many evangelicals and fundamentalists at present, for despite their contempt of the ecclesiastical authority of the Lutheran and Calvinist state churches, the Anabaptists still had bishops and ecclesiastical authority exercised communally, albeit outside the formal churches following the doctrines of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and the other Magisterial Reformers, who are called Magisterial precisely because they maintained a teaching authority, in addition to preserving those parts of the Catholic and Patristic heritage they deemed fit (of which at the time I think Luther did the best job.

For that matter, I really wish the Czech Unitas Fratrum had been more successful, as that would have restored Orthodoxy to the West and made the Reformation unnecessary, and would likely have prevented the rise of the more extreme forms of it, since the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, while experiencing misguided missionary activity in their territories, have never experienced an organic home-grown equivalent of the Protestant Reformation, rather, the majority of schisms experienced by the Orthodox are in resistance to threats to church tradition, such as the adoption of the Revised Julian Calendar or the attempted suppression in the late 17th and 18th centuries of the Russian Old Rite, these two events collectively accounting for the majority of schisms against the Orthodox. As it happened, the surviving Moravians wound up on the estate of Zinzendorf, who did save their life, and who was a decent man, but he was also radically Pietist and had some strange ideas, which adversely impacted the Moravian church and ultimately led to John Wesley being alienated from it.

Failing that, I will say it is a pity that Lutheran Orthodoxy was not universally adopted, and also that Martin Luther himself did not live long enough to supervise the spectacularly failed dialogue with Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople. The Lutherans should also probably have reached out to the Muscovites, as the Russians had much more fruitful relations with the high church Anglicans, and benefitted from not having their Patriarch serve a dual ecclesiastical and secular role as the Ethnarch of the Romioii people before the Sublime Porte (the court of the Turkish Sultan). The Slavic Orthodox and also the Antiochians (Syrian Eastern Orthodox) have historically always been more willing to work with outsiders and to accommodate them, as demonstrated by the fact that the Western Rite Orthodox movement originated largely as a result of St. Tikhon, as Metropolitan of New York, getting the Holy Synod back in Russia (over which he would later preside as the first Patriarch since the illegal suppression of the office by Peter “the Great”, before his arrest in the 1920s and subsequent death under conditions of poor treatment) to review the Anglican liturgy and determine the required modifications so that American converts to Orthodoxy could continue to use it. And to this day, Western Rite Orthodoxy is primarily associated with ROCOR (the autonomous Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) and the Antiochian Orthodox Church, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, even, disappointingly, including Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, has always opposed it. They also were unhelpful when the Evangelical Orthodox Church wanted to convert to Orthodoxy, since the EP insisted that the EOC clergy commit themselves to “spreading Hellenic culture.” So the EOC guys wound up mostly being received by Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch, memory eternal.

Well, based on post #11, I find that I cannot (or should not) reply as I do not fall into any of those categories.

I will simply say Church history is filled with inconsistencies which was the need for church councils. In fact, the Orthodox have a very big disagreement with the Catholic Church on the Nicene Creed, the authority of the Pope, etc. So Luther is not alone.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[Stephen3141]

Some Protestants say yes. The Fathers' writings say no.​

Perspicuity is the Protestant doctrine that Holy Scripture is clear enough that any humble, prayerful Christian, regardless of academic pedigree, intellectual ability, or ecclesial authority, is able to understand what is necessary for salvation. But did the Church Fathers teach this doctrine?

This has been perhaps the most frequentresponse to my 2023 book The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity, in which I present the various philosophical, theological, historical, and sociological problems with the doctrine. If the Church did teach the doctrine of perspicuity, it would certainly undermine, though not necessarily cripple, the thesis of my book. So let’s examine the evidence.

When Protestants argue that the Church Fathers did in fact teach biblical perspicuity, they will appeal to quotations from several Fathers that seem to affirm the clarity of Scripture. Here I’ll cite some of the most common.

St. Ireaneus in Against Heresies declares,


Similarly, in St. Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine, we read this:

Continued below.

Did the Fathers Teach ‘Bible Alone’?

Protestants sometimes argue that the Church Fathers taught perspicuity, the idea that Scripture is clear enough not to need an authoritative interpreter.

www.catholic.com

I haven't yet noticed any comment on what "Scripture" means, in this post.

I HAVE noticed that most of the people who comment on this (larger) site, are
using English translations of Scripture, and are tacitly assuming that the English
translation they are using, is ACCURATE.

However, with regard to New Testament topics andd references, I have noticed
that most who comment on the topics or texts, do not have access to the original
koine Greek text. And often, they bring basic misunderstandings of concept
definitions, and mental associations (in English) to the discussion.

I think that when you talk about "perspicuity", you have to identify what you
think is the text of "Scripture".

I would assert that Scripture is all versions of the original language Old and
New Testaments, but not, particularly, translations of these texts.

Obviously, some translations of Scripture are deemed "good enough" by traditional
Christian groups, for a certain level of teaching. But, for professional hermeneutics,
(I assert) that scholars have to go back to the original biblical language texts.

And, if this point of wisdom is adherred to, THEN I think that many North American
Christians do not have (full) access to the Scripture, and the interpretation of Scripture
is NOT perspicuous.
---------- ----------

As an example, I would point out that the original Greek text of the New Testament
has no capital (as opposed to small) letters, so that all capitalization in a Greek text
is a later interpretational addition. This means that, in English, the use of "lord" and "Lord"
and "LORD" is an interpretation, and not original. The same is true of the translations
"spirit" and "Spirit". Although English (only) speakers may think that their English
translation is "obvious", they never see beneath the surface of the translation, to
recognize that interpretation has gone on, in their translation. And different
traditional theologies, assume different possible meanings of words like this.

I am saying that there is more to this question of perspicuity, than the entries in
this thread have identified.

(I would ask the same type of question of the Nicene Creed, when it asserts in
multiple places, we believe in .... the lord, .... Is that LORD, the Hebrew name of God?
Is that Lord, the Incarnation? Obviously, the Christ, and the Holy Spirit are not the
SAME person.)

Questions of perspicuity get even larger, when you consider that some New Testament
concepts are "quoting ideas" from the Old Testament. Such as, xaris in the New Testament
correlates with the Hebrew hesed in the Old Testament. Linguistically (I believe), this makes
Psalm 136 all about the "grace/kind providence of God". This is ANYTHING but obvious,
to some traditional theologies!!! When have you heard Psalm 136 quoted, in a discussion
of whether or not we are "saved by grace"?

I think that the discussion of perspicuity, needs to be expanded.

 

[The Liturgist]

I would ask the same type of question of the Nicene Creed, when it asserts in
multiple places, we believe in .... the lord, .... Is that LORD, the Hebrew name of God?
Is that Lord, the Incarnation? Obviously, the Christ, and the Holy Spirit are not the
SAME person.)

They are three persons with three hypostases in one God, coessential, coequal and coeternal. We are not tritheists.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

(I would ask the same type of question of the Nicene Creed, when it asserts in
multiple places, we believe in .... the lord, .... Is that LORD, the Hebrew name of God?
Is that Lord, the Incarnation? Obviously, the Christ, and the Holy Spirit are not the
SAME person.)

To address your questions, I would direct you to the Athanasian Creed; compiled to further clarify these and other issues:

The Athanasian Creed
Written against the Arians.
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.

The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. (Source: The Ecumenical Creeds )

 

[The Liturgist]

Because it contains the original version of the Athanasian Creed, sans the filioque, I thought I might repost the list of confessional hymns, influenced by @MarkRohfrietsch who pointed out the creedal nature of Te Deum Laudamus, for complete reference:

+

My statement of faith is composed of a few elements, including the Nicene Creed, without the Filioque, the Apostle’s Creed, and the following Canticles, beginning with the Quicunque Vult, also known as the Athanasian Creed, in its original form. The Nicene Creed is of course the most important part of my Statement of Faith, for it is the one unifying Creed and Symbol of Faith, and everything else adds to it. For example, the Apostle’s Creed contains statements that have the effect of completely rejecting Gnosticism, and also contains a confession of the doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell: when it says our Lord descended into Hell, this aludes to the fact that Christ Jesus did enter into the realm of the dead to preach to those trapped therein, so that the souls of the righteous could follow him out, which the Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom, the sermon preached on every Sunday by the Eastern Orthodox Church, refers to, and additionally this Paschal Homily is also part of my Statement of Faith, which is the only part not usually set to music in any church (since the Nicene Creed, the Apostles’ Creed and the Athanasian Creed also known as Quicunque Vult all have musical settings, indeed much of the Lutheran Baroque master composer JS Bach’s legendary Mass in B Minor consists of the dramatic singing of the Nicene Creed. Actually the fact the Pachal Homily is not usually sung is a bit surprising given how much of the Eastern Orthodox liturgy is normally sung, and the fact that St. Ephraim the Syrian composed a number of sermons which were intended to be sung rather than read. At any rate, it is as follows:

If any be devout and God-loving, let him enjoy this fair and radiant triumph. If any be a good and wise servant, let him enter rejoicing into the joy of his Lord. If any be weary of fasting, let him now receive his reward. If any have labored from the first hour, let him receive today his rightful due. If any have come at the third hour, let him feast with thankfulness. If any have arrived at the sixth hour, let him in no wise be in doubt, for in no wise shall he suffer loss. If any be delayed even until the ninth hour, let him draw near, doubting nothing, fearing nothing. If any have tarried even until the eleventh hour, let him not be fearful on account of his lateness; for the Master, Who is jealous of His honor, receiveth the last even as the first. He giveth rest to him that cometh at the eleventh hour, as well as to him that hath labored from the first hour; and to the last He is merciful, and the first He pleaseth; to the one He giveth, and to the other He bestoweth; and He receiveth the works, and welcometh the intention; and the deed He honoureth, and the offering He praiseth. Wherefore, then, enter ye all into the joy of your Lord; both the first and the second, receive ye your reward. Ye rich and ye poor, with one another exult.

Ye sober and ye slothful, honor the day. Ye that have kept the fast and ye that have not, be glad today. The table is full-laden, delight ye all. The calf is fatted; let none go forth hungry. Let all enjoy the feast of faith, receive all ye the riches of goodness. Let no one bewail his poverty, for the universal kingdom hath been revealed. Let no one weep for his transgressions, for forgiveness hath dawned from the tomb. Let no one fear death, for the death of the Saviour hath set us free. He hath quench by it, He hath led hades captive, He Who descended into hades. He embittered it, when it tasted of His flesh. And foretelling this, Isaiah cried: "Hades," he saith, "was embittered when it encountered Thee below." It was embittered, for it was abolished. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was overthrown. It was embittered, for it was fettered. It received a body and encountered God. It received earth, and met heaven. It received that which it saw, and fell to what it did not see. O death, where is thy sting? O hades, where is thy victory?

Christ is risen, and thou art cast down.

Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen.

Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice.

Christ is risen, and life flourisheth.

Christ is risen, and there is none dead in the tombs.

For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first-fruits of them that have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and dominion unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Now for the Athanasian Creed, or Quicunque Vult. This was not composed by St. Athanasius, but it includes a portion of one of his writings in defense of the doctrine of the Incarnation against the Arian heresy, and it also includes portions of the 21st Homily of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also known as St. Gregory the Theologian, which was a panygeric composed in memory of St. Athanasius. This canticle interfaces with the Nicene Creed so as to ensure a proper understanding of the true nature of the Holy Trinity. Some people object to this creed because of the “damnatory clauses”, that is to say, its insistence that belief in the doctrine it outlines is required for salvation; my view on this point is that Christ will have mercy on who he will have mercy, but it is extremely dangerous for Christians to reject the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Athanasian Creed, Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed collectively represent the minimal beliefs required of normal Christianity, with the Athanasian Creed providing the most detail. So under ordinary conditions, one must believe in the doctrine it contains, but through God, all things are possible, so it is possible for people who reject the doctrine of the Athanasian Creed to be saved through the grace of God owing to his omnipotence, but for Christians, there really is no compelling reason to reject this doctrine. I have never understood the appeal of Unitarianism.


WHOSOEVER will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity, to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. Likewise also the Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other, none is greater, or less than another; but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Concerning Christ

FURTHERMORE, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the ages, and Man, of the Substance of His Mother, born in the world; perfect God, and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father, as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ; one; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

The next item in my Statement of Faith is the Christological hymn Ho Monogenes, most likely composed by St. Severus of Antioch. This hymn is a defense against Nestorianism and other Christological errors, because it stresses the full humanity and divinity of Christ our True God, and the fact that by giving birth to our Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary became the Theotokos, or Mother of God.

Only-Begotten Son and Immortal Word of God,
Who for our salvation didst will to be incarnate of the holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary;
Who without change didst become man and was crucified;
Who art one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit:
O Christ our God, trampling down death by death, save us!

Next on the list is the ancient hymn Te Deum Laudamus, composed by St. Ambrose of Milan and St. Augustine of Hippo:


We praise thee, O God; we acknowledge thee to be the Lord.
All the earth doth worship thee, the Father everlasting.
To thee all Angels cry aloud,
the Heavens and all the Powers therein.
To thee Cherubim and Seraphim continually do cry:
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth;
Heaven and earth are full of the majesty of thy glory.
The glorious company of the apostles praise thee.
The goodly fellowship of the prophets praise thee.
The noble army of martyrs praise thee.
The holy Church throughout all the world
doth acknowledge thee,
the Father, of an infinite majesty,
thine adorable, true, and only Son,
also the Holy Ghost the Comforter.

Thou art the King of glory, O Christ.
Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father.
When thou tookest upon thee to deliver man,
thou didst humble thyself to be born of a Virgin.
When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death,
thou didst open the kingdom of heaven to all believers.
Thou sittest at the right hand of God, in the glory of the Father.
We believe that thou shalt come to be our judge.
We therefore pray thee, halp thy servants,
whom thou hast redeemed with thy precious blood.
Make them to be numbered with thy saints,
in glory everlasting.


Next, the Syriac Orthodox Metrical Homily Haw Nurone, by St. Jacob of Sarugh, which provides a very good confession of the true nature of the Eucharist and also of the important role of auricular confession in maintaining spiritual health:


The Lord Whom the seraphs fear to look at,
The same you behold in bread and wine on the altar.
The lightning clothed hosts are burned if they see Him in His brilliance.
Yet the contemptible dust partakes of Him with confidence.
The Son's Mysteries are fire among the heavenly beings,
Isaiah bears witness with us to have seen them.
These Mysteries which were in the Divinity's bosom,
Are distributed to Adam's children on the altar.
The altar is fashioned like the cherubim's chariot,
And is surrounded by the heavenly hosts.
On the altar is laid the Body of God's Son,
And Adam's children carry it solemnly on their hands.
Instead of a man clad in linen, stands the (priest),
And distributes alms (the Eucharist) among the needy.
If envy existed among the angels,
The cherubim would have envied men.
Where Zion set up the Cross to crucify the Son,
There grew up the tree that gave birth to the Lamb.
Where nails were driven in the Son's hands,
There Isaac's hands were bound for an offering.
Welcome, priest, who carries the Mysteries of his Lord,
And with his right hand distributes life to men.
Welcome, priest, who carries a pure censer,
And with its fragrance makes the world sweet and pleasant.
Welcome, priest, whom the Holy Spirit did raise up,
And on his tongue bears the keys to the house of God.
Welcome, priest, who binds man in the depth below,
And the Lord binds him in heaven on high. Halleluiah.
Welcome, priest, who unbinds men on earth,
And the Lord unbinds him in the highest. Kyrie eleison.
Praise be to the Lord. His mercy upon you and absolution for me.

Finally, some additional material which I lack the room to fit, but which is of great importance, such, the canticle known as the Magnificat in Luke, and the the hymns “It is truly meet” and “All of creation rejoices in Thee” about the Blessed Virgin Mary are very important as they establish the proper veneration due to the woman who gave birth to God Incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, our Lord, God and Savior and is thus venerated as the saint closest to God, literally, since she did give birth to Him (since Jesus Christ is God). We obviously do not believe that she gave birth to the Trinity, as some people baselessly worry about the title “Mother of God” conveying, and indeed even of the cults that do inappropriately worship St. Mary in violation of the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, to my knowledge none of them has claimed that. Rather, the worst they have done is to declare her co-redemptrix, or to say that she is present in the Eucharist along with our Lord, or to offer the Eucharist to her and to the Lord, all three of which are serious errors and represent idolatry, but are a far cry from believing that she gave birth to the entire Trinity, as some people fear. I had an interesting conversation with @MarkRohfrietsch recently about how that is a baseless concern. It is extremely important that we venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary, as Martin Luther himself did, because of her vital role in God’s plan for our salvation, and indeed the Gospel of Luke predicts this veneration in the canticle the Magnificat. Indeed, all three of the Evangelical Canticles found in the Gospel of Luke, along with John 1:1-18, and several other Canticles, such as Benedicite Omni Opera, located throughout Scripture, along with the Psalms, and the ancient Hebrew creed found in the Pentateuch known as the Shema, which is included in the Nicene Creed, naturally form part of my statement of faith, which ultimately extends to include all of the books of Scripture that are recognized as canonical by the various Orthodox churches. I also accept Psalms 152-155, which are of Syriac composition, as they are edifying and do not contain any suggestions of problematic doctrine (unlike the early Christian hymns known as the Odes of Solomon, some of which are seriously problematic and show a Gnostic influence). There is also a Coptic confession before the Eucharist, intoned by the Priest, which I greatly love, and am discussing with my friend @dzheremi as to whether or not I should include it, or a related Byzantine confession.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Because it contains the original version of the Athanasian Creed, sans the filioque, I thought I might repost the list of confessional hymns, influenced by @MarkRohfrietsch who pointed out the creedal nature of Te Deum Laudamus, for complete reference:

+

My statement of faith is composed of a few elements, including the Nicene Creed, without the Filioque, the Apostle’s Creed, and the following Canticles, beginning with the Quicunque Vult, also known as the Athanasian Creed, in its original form. The Nicene Creed is of course the most important part of my Statement of Faith, for it is the one unifying Creed and Symbol of Faith, and everything else adds to it. For example, the Apostle’s Creed contains statements that have the effect of completely rejecting Gnosticism, and also contains a confession of the doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell: when it says our Lord descended into Hell, this aludes to the fact that Christ Jesus did enter into the realm of the dead to preach to those trapped therein, so that the souls of the righteous could follow him out, which the Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom, the sermon preached on every Sunday by the Eastern Orthodox Church, refers to, and additionally this Paschal Homily is also part of my Statement of Faith, which is the only part not usually set to music in any church (since the Nicene Creed, the Apostles’ Creed and the Athanasian Creed also known as Quicunque Vult all have musical settings, indeed much of the Lutheran Baroque master composer JS Bach’s legendary Mass in B Minor consists of the dramatic singing of the Nicene Creed. Actually the fact the Pachal Homily is not usually sung is a bit surprising given how much of the Eastern Orthodox liturgy is normally sung, and the fact that St. Ephraim the Syrian composed a number of sermons which were intended to be sung rather than read. At any rate, it is as follows:

If any be devout and God-loving, let him enjoy this fair and radiant triumph. If any be a good and wise servant, let him enter rejoicing into the joy of his Lord. If any be weary of fasting, let him now receive his reward. If any have labored from the first hour, let him receive today his rightful due. If any have come at the third hour, let him feast with thankfulness. If any have arrived at the sixth hour, let him in no wise be in doubt, for in no wise shall he suffer loss. If any be delayed even until the ninth hour, let him draw near, doubting nothing, fearing nothing. If any have tarried even until the eleventh hour, let him not be fearful on account of his lateness; for the Master, Who is jealous of His honor, receiveth the last even as the first. He giveth rest to him that cometh at the eleventh hour, as well as to him that hath labored from the first hour; and to the last He is merciful, and the first He pleaseth; to the one He giveth, and to the other He bestoweth; and He receiveth the works, and welcometh the intention; and the deed He honoureth, and the offering He praiseth. Wherefore, then, enter ye all into the joy of your Lord; both the first and the second, receive ye your reward. Ye rich and ye poor, with one another exult.

Ye sober and ye slothful, honor the day. Ye that have kept the fast and ye that have not, be glad today. The table is full-laden, delight ye all. The calf is fatted; let none go forth hungry. Let all enjoy the feast of faith, receive all ye the riches of goodness. Let no one bewail his poverty, for the universal kingdom hath been revealed. Let no one weep for his transgressions, for forgiveness hath dawned from the tomb. Let no one fear death, for the death of the Saviour hath set us free. He hath quench by it, He hath led hades captive, He Who descended into hades. He embittered it, when it tasted of His flesh. And foretelling this, Isaiah cried: "Hades," he saith, "was embittered when it encountered Thee below." It was embittered, for it was abolished. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was overthrown. It was embittered, for it was fettered. It received a body and encountered God. It received earth, and met heaven. It received that which it saw, and fell to what it did not see. O death, where is thy sting? O hades, where is thy victory?

Christ is risen, and thou art cast down.

Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen.

Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice.

Christ is risen, and life flourisheth.

Christ is risen, and there is none dead in the tombs.

For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first-fruits of them that have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and dominion unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Now for the Athanasian Creed, or Quicunque Vult. This was not composed by St. Athanasius, but it includes a portion of one of his writings in defense of the doctrine of the Incarnation against the Arian heresy, and it also includes portions of the 21st Homily of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also known as St. Gregory the Theologian, which was a panygeric composed in memory of St. Athanasius. This canticle interfaces with the Nicene Creed so as to ensure a proper understanding of the true nature of the Holy Trinity. Some people object to this creed because of the “damnatory clauses”, that is to say, its insistence that belief in the doctrine it outlines is required for salvation; my view on this point is that Christ will have mercy on who he will have mercy, but it is extremely dangerous for Christians to reject the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Athanasian Creed, Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed collectively represent the minimal beliefs required of normal Christianity, with the Athanasian Creed providing the most detail. So under ordinary conditions, one must believe in the doctrine it contains, but through God, all things are possible, so it is possible for people who reject the doctrine of the Athanasian Creed to be saved through the grace of God owing to his omnipotence, but for Christians, there really is no compelling reason to reject this doctrine. I have never understood the appeal of Unitarianism.


WHOSOEVER will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity, to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. Likewise also the Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other, none is greater, or less than another; but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Concerning Christ

FURTHERMORE, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the ages, and Man, of the Substance of His Mother, born in the world; perfect God, and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father, as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ; one; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

The next item in my Statement of Faith is the Christological hymn Ho Monogenes, most likely composed by St. Severus of Antioch. This hymn is a defense against Nestorianism and other Christological errors, because it stresses the full humanity and divinity of Christ our True God, and the fact that by giving birth to our Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary became the Theotokos, or Mother of God.

Only-Begotten Son and Immortal Word of God,
Who for our salvation didst will to be incarnate of the holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary;
Who without change didst become man and was crucified;
Who art one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit:
O Christ our God, trampling down death by death, save us!

Next on the list is the ancient hymn Te Deum Laudamus, composed by St. Ambrose of Milan and St. Augustine of Hippo:


We praise thee, O God; we acknowledge thee to be the Lord.
All the earth doth worship thee, the Father everlasting.
To thee all Angels cry aloud,
the Heavens and all the Powers therein.
To thee Cherubim and Seraphim continually do cry:
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth;
Heaven and earth are full of the majesty of thy glory.
The glorious company of the apostles praise thee.
The goodly fellowship of the prophets praise thee.
The noble army of martyrs praise thee.
The holy Church throughout all the world
doth acknowledge thee,
the Father, of an infinite majesty,
thine adorable, true, and only Son,
also the Holy Ghost the Comforter.

Thou art the King of glory, O Christ.
Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father.
When thou tookest upon thee to deliver man,
thou didst humble thyself to be born of a Virgin.
When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death,
thou didst open the kingdom of heaven to all believers.
Thou sittest at the right hand of God, in the glory of the Father.
We believe that thou shalt come to be our judge.
We therefore pray thee, halp thy servants,
whom thou hast redeemed with thy precious blood.
Make them to be numbered with thy saints,
in glory everlasting.


Next, the Syriac Orthodox Metrical Homily Haw Nurone, by St. Jacob of Sarugh, which provides a very good confession of the true nature of the Eucharist and also of the important role of auricular confession in maintaining spiritual health:


The Lord Whom the seraphs fear to look at,
The same you behold in bread and wine on the altar.
The lightning clothed hosts are burned if they see Him in His brilliance.
Yet the contemptible dust partakes of Him with confidence.
The Son's Mysteries are fire among the heavenly beings,
Isaiah bears witness with us to have seen them.
These Mysteries which were in the Divinity's bosom,
Are distributed to Adam's children on the altar.
The altar is fashioned like the cherubim's chariot,
And is surrounded by the heavenly hosts.
On the altar is laid the Body of God's Son,
And Adam's children carry it solemnly on their hands.
Instead of a man clad in linen, stands the (priest),
And distributes alms (the Eucharist) among the needy.
If envy existed among the angels,
The cherubim would have envied men.
Where Zion set up the Cross to crucify the Son,
There grew up the tree that gave birth to the Lamb.
Where nails were driven in the Son's hands,
There Isaac's hands were bound for an offering.
Welcome, priest, who carries the Mysteries of his Lord,
And with his right hand distributes life to men.
Welcome, priest, who carries a pure censer,
And with its fragrance makes the world sweet and pleasant.
Welcome, priest, whom the Holy Spirit did raise up,
And on his tongue bears the keys to the house of God.
Welcome, priest, who binds man in the depth below,
And the Lord binds him in heaven on high. Halleluiah.
Welcome, priest, who unbinds men on earth,
And the Lord unbinds him in the highest. Kyrie eleison.
Praise be to the Lord. His mercy upon you and absolution for me.

Finally, some additional material which I lack the room to fit, but which is of great importance, such, the canticle known as the Magnificat in Luke, and the the hymns “It is truly meet” and “All of creation rejoices in Thee” about the Blessed Virgin Mary are very important as they establish the proper veneration due to the woman who gave birth to God Incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, our Lord, God and Savior and is thus venerated as the saint closest to God, literally, since she did give birth to Him (since Jesus Christ is God). We obviously do not believe that she gave birth to the Trinity, as some people baselessly worry about the title “Mother of God” conveying, and indeed even of the cults that do inappropriately worship St. Mary in violation of the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, to my knowledge none of them has claimed that. Rather, the worst they have done is to declare her co-redemptrix, or to say that she is present in the Eucharist along with our Lord, or to offer the Eucharist to her and to the Lord, all three of which are serious errors and represent idolatry, but are a far cry from believing that she gave birth to the entire Trinity, as some people fear. I had an interesting conversation with @MarkRohfrietsch recently about how that is a baseless concern. It is extremely important that we venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary, as Martin Luther himself did, because of her vital role in God’s plan for our salvation, and indeed the Gospel of Luke predicts this veneration in the canticle the Magnificat. Indeed, all three of the Evangelical Canticles found in the Gospel of Luke, along with John 1:1-18, and several other Canticles, such as Benedicite Omni Opera, located throughout Scripture, along with the Psalms, and the ancient Hebrew creed found in the Pentateuch known as the Shema, which is included in the Nicene Creed, naturally form part of my statement of faith, which ultimately extends to include all of the books of Scripture that are recognized as canonical by the various Orthodox churches. I also accept Psalms 152-155, which are of Syriac composition, as they are edifying and do not contain any suggestions of problematic doctrine (unlike the early Christian hymns known as the Odes of Solomon, some of which are seriously problematic and show a Gnostic influence). There is also a Coptic confession before the Eucharist, intoned by the Priest, which I greatly love, and am discussing with my friend @dzheremi as to whether or not I should include it, or a related Byzantine confession.

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live​

 

[The Liturgist]

Paul said follow him. He wrote scripture. I follow him.

Just a friendly reminder you’re posting in Traditional Theology; please be sure to review the Traditional Theology Statement of Purpose:

Statement of Purpose - Traditional Theology Statement of Purpose

 

[stevevw]

I don't under 'Perspicuity of Scripture'. This means The perspicuity of scripture is 'the idea that the Bible is clear and understandable, and that it can be interpreted literally'

Who is or is not interpreting the bible literally, the Protestants or Catholics. What is the problem with the bible being clear and interpreted literally in some places. Or needs further interpretation in others.