FYI, here's a summary of discussions between Lutherans and Orthodox in the 16th Cent: What did the reformers think about the Eastern Orthodox Church? | Christian History. It's clear that some Lutherans actually did consider that the Orthodox would have a contribution to make. However there turned out to be too many differences. I'm afraid that Lutherans would view some Orthodox doctrines and practices as improper accretions to the Bible, even if it avoided some of the problems of Rome.
The original criticism was that Protestants operate as individuals, without any controls. I believe this has been demonstrated to be false, at least for confessional Protestants. The more recent comments would seem to be summarized as saying in effect that multiple recent traditions, while providing some control on individual speculation, still doesn't give the continuity with the Apostles or consistency that the Orthodox maintain.
I believe the modern situation is different from the 16th Cent one. In the 16th Cent I think the Reformers may have been overly optimistic about the degree of consensus one could get from sola scriptura. However in today's context, my answer would be that while the Catholic / Orthodox approach produces better agreement among members of the tradition, it has weaker protection against the tradition as a whole deviating. I think most Protestants would assess the current situation as looser agreement centered around something that's closer to the original Biblical intent.
Personally, I would say that the Orthodox tradition has changed less over time than the Catholic one. That's why many of the problems that the Reformers had with Rome were not present in Orthodoxy. However despite the stability of the Eastern tradition, I think much of the damage was done by the time the Orthodox tradition stabilized. The Gospel had already been translated into a very different culture form 1st Cent Palestine, with different concerns and different modes of thought. I don't doubt that that translation was well intended, nor that it served a useful role. But I would prefer to make current interpretations from the original rather than from a tradition that has already gone through at least one cultural translation.
I also note that methodologically there are two different types of Protestant, which I have started calling Catholic Protestants and Protestant Protestants. The Reformation was largely a result of early Renaissance critical scholarship. In moving from the Vulgate to the original languages, and using current Biblical scholarship, large problems appeared in the Western traditional interpretations. The Reformers were willing to make major changes to the tradition. However most Protestants are currently conservative. They are not willing to accept the modern version of critical scholarship. In effect they have frozen the results of 16th and 17th scholarship, developing a new tradition that is defended in nearly the identical way as the original Catholic one. "Mainline" Protestants, however, have continued to use the results of critical scholarship even as it changes, on the grounds that while the original Reformation was an improvement, there is work yet to be done. I find both the orthodox and mainline positions coherent. I find it less sensible to accept Luther's radical changes and then reject continuing application of similar methods.
The original criticism was that Protestants operate as individuals, without any controls. I believe this has been demonstrated to be false, at least for confessional Protestants. The more recent comments would seem to be summarized as saying in effect that multiple recent traditions, while providing some control on individual speculation, still doesn't give the continuity with the Apostles or consistency that the Orthodox maintain.
I believe the modern situation is different from the 16th Cent one. In the 16th Cent I think the Reformers may have been overly optimistic about the degree of consensus one could get from sola scriptura. However in today's context, my answer would be that while the Catholic / Orthodox approach produces better agreement among members of the tradition, it has weaker protection against the tradition as a whole deviating. I think most Protestants would assess the current situation as looser agreement centered around something that's closer to the original Biblical intent.
Personally, I would say that the Orthodox tradition has changed less over time than the Catholic one. That's why many of the problems that the Reformers had with Rome were not present in Orthodoxy. However despite the stability of the Eastern tradition, I think much of the damage was done by the time the Orthodox tradition stabilized. The Gospel had already been translated into a very different culture form 1st Cent Palestine, with different concerns and different modes of thought. I don't doubt that that translation was well intended, nor that it served a useful role. But I would prefer to make current interpretations from the original rather than from a tradition that has already gone through at least one cultural translation.
I also note that methodologically there are two different types of Protestant, which I have started calling Catholic Protestants and Protestant Protestants. The Reformation was largely a result of early Renaissance critical scholarship. In moving from the Vulgate to the original languages, and using current Biblical scholarship, large problems appeared in the Western traditional interpretations. The Reformers were willing to make major changes to the tradition. However most Protestants are currently conservative. They are not willing to accept the modern version of critical scholarship. In effect they have frozen the results of 16th and 17th scholarship, developing a new tradition that is defended in nearly the identical way as the original Catholic one. "Mainline" Protestants, however, have continued to use the results of critical scholarship even as it changes, on the grounds that while the original Reformation was an improvement, there is work yet to be done. I find both the orthodox and mainline positions coherent. I find it less sensible to accept Luther's radical changes and then reject continuing application of similar methods.
Upvote
0