Sola Scriptura?

~Anastasia~ said:

It depends on what you mean by these, whether or not we agree/disagree. Our sources of authority, along with Scripture, are the Creeds, the Councils, those things that are included within the Liturgy.

Click to expand...

And you are disavowing all of those other sources of direction that were named?

We would reject the first definition, I think, and accept the second.

We reject all of these except for the assumption of Mary. And the Assumption of Mary is not really a major point AT ALL. We don't put the Assumption on the liturgical calendar. We do put the dormition on it. It is theologically important to us that THE VIRGIN MARY DIED A PHYSICAL DEATH, as all human people do. And it doesn't appear that you disagree with that point.

Click to expand...

Here is a point that maybe should be identified. This thread started as an attack against Sola Scriptura. I explained Sola Scriptura, which has been often misunderstood and mischaracterized. But most of the exchange here has been between myself and Orthodox Christians although it was the drift away from Apostolic norms occurring in the Western church that brought about the Reformation...and Catholic members have not been active in our discussion. How has that affected the "debate" over Sola Scriptura? What's more, I think I see in your words also a recognition of this "problem."

IOW, if the Roman Church was the cause of a reform movement that re-asserted the importance of Scripture, has Sola Scriptura been "disproved" simply because Orthodox Eastern Christianity was always much less involved in or affected by Rome's unScriptual drift?

Well, quote simply, we would say that there is a body of Truth that has been delivered to the Church. Primary within that, is Holy Scripture, meaning it has highest authority.

Click to expand...

What we do not allow is for someone to twist a private interpretation of Scripture to go against the way the Church has always understood it. Though I will say there is a great deal of leeway there - not everything is tightly defined and we have freedom within certain parameters.

Honestly, I don't think we are defining either Holy Tradition or the authority of Scripture in the same way. You insist in making Tradition separate from Scripture, something that CAN oppose it, and thus potentially subjugate it in terms of authority. We do not view Scripture as being apart from Holy Tradition, but rather as being the most important part of Holy Tradition. It is really impossible for us to conceive of a competition between the two for authority. But if there WERE any competition, Scripture would be the highest authority.

Click to expand...

Not really the issue.

What we do not believe is that Scripture contains everything we know. Again, St. Paul refers to holding the traditions/teachings handed down by word and by epistle, which would explicitly refute the kind of SS that demands anything not in Scripture be rejected.

Click to expand...

That's not Holy Tradition by any definition. You continue to advocate for traditions while I am saying that Sola Scriptura opposed Holy Tradition--two quite different things..

Really, intercessions of the Saints is a good example, since you have made aggrandizement of them your reason, saying that God has said He will not share certain things with any creature.

It would need a better understanding of how we view these things, which @dzheremi has discussed a bit, I think. It is because we honor what God does through them - if they intercede and a miracle results, we still attribute the miracle to God and praise Him for it. We NEVER worship the Saints - to do so would be great heresy. But at the same time, while God has said that He would not share His glory with another, what did Christ mean when He specifically said in His prayer (John 17) "I have given them the glory which you have given me?" It sounds like a contradiction, but we ARE glorified in Christ. It is always by the will and grace of God though, and to His glory.

Click to expand...

Again, I'm not trying to convince of any practice. But your objection relies on a particular interpretation of particular Scriptures.

Click to expand...

You mean we follow and intend to follow Scripture. I suppose that's fair to say.

ETA: too long a break between my reading of your posts and my reply.

Click to expand...

Yeh, we do seem to be struggling not to lose the focus. As I read this message of yours I keep thinking that nothing I've explained has made any impact, but I'm not sure how to correct that.

But it occurs to me that If I have been the cause of misunderstanding, perhaps it would be best to go straight to someone else for the explanation. Here IMO is a fairly concise presentation that's also free of a lot of unnecessary theological jargon: What Does Sola Scriptura Mean?

dzheremi said:

Hmm. From the limited study I have been able to do of my own communion's interactions with the Anglicans, I had assumed that our relation with them was more positive. They are one of the more traditional churches, are they not? Or have I been misinformed?

Click to expand...

No. You are quite right. Both the liberal and the conservative Anglican churches have historically had a cooperative and sympathetic attitude towards Orthodoxy, and I feel that way myself.

All4Christ said:

Certainly all experiences I've seen with Orthodox and Anglican churches was very positive and helpful.

Click to expand...

I think we've reached the end of the discussion about the intercession of saints, particularly in regards to its relationship to Sola Scriptura, but I have appreciated the conversation to this point I'll just comment on one more thing.

Albion, I understand your concern about giving worship to the saints that should be reserved for God. All I will say is that a proper relationship with all the saints triumphant points honor to God, not the Saint him/herself. This belief can be abused, but that doesn't mean it is inherently wrong. Since it is somewhat off-topic, I'll stop there. Just explaining the EO POV.

Abusus non tollit usam. It is good, right and salutary to remember and honor past heroes of the faith, to thank God for their sacrificial service and devotion, and to seek to emulate their example.

Tangible said:

Abusus non tollit usam. It is good, right and salutary to remember and honor past heroes of the faith, to thank God for their sacrificial service and devotion, and to seek to emulate their example.

Click to expand...

As you've defined it, yes; however, I don't think that the EO stop there.

Gracia Singh said:

But you guys do use other's theologies, ideas, theories about Christian history, and musings to interpret and apply the contents of Scripture. I've never been in a Catholic or Orthodox study, but every Anglican, Lutheran, or Baptist pastor's office I've ever stepped into is chock full of books, commentaries, and encyclopedias of information which they presumably turn to in order to understand and explain Scripture, to themselves and to their flock.

So functionally, what's the difference?

Click to expand...

Within Lutheran thought, Scripture is viewed as the norm that norms , Tradition flows from that norm and guides it's interpretation , however unlike in Roman Catholic teaching , Tradition is not equal with Scripture .
And the Reformed , Anglican , Wesleyans hold to somewhat similar views on the matter .
To summarize, Sola Scriptura==Prima Scriptura.
Hope that helps.

Gracia Singh said:

But again, Sir, how a Lutheran interprets and applies Scripture is informed in some part by Luther's personal theology, and by modern opinions as to what is relevant / meaningful Scripturally. A Lutheran would not look at Scripture and read Purgatory into the text, nor would he read that grace through faith and works secures and completes our salvation in Christ.

Click to expand...

We draw from the Church Father's , the Mystics , The Reformers and many others , why does this surprise you?

Taom Ben Robert said:

We draw from the Church Father's , the Mystics , The Reformers and many others , why does this surprise you?

Click to expand...

As do every other school of thought.

Gracia Singh said:

So as of right now, I'm coming to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is basically impossible. Protestants, while claiming Scripture Alone, are informed theologically by a massive library of very diverse theologians, authors, TV personalities, radio personalities, and pastors as diverse as John Calvin and Joyce Meyer who basically tell their audience what the Bible says, what it means, and how to live it out.

What's the difference between this and Tradition interpreting Scripture? Because the points of Calvinism are no where spelled out point by point in Scripture, line by line, yet Christians adhering to Reformed Soteriology interpret the Bible through the thoughts and writings of Calvin and others. Likewise Protestants generally interpret the Scriptures through the lens of Sola Fide, in spite of numerous verses that seem to indicate that our works in Christ *do* determine where we go when we die.

So in light of all this, why get upset by Catholics and Orthodox who interpret Scripture through their Tradition, when Protestants do the exact same thing, essentially? Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I was about to start a thread titled "Sola Scriptura testing of all doctrine and practice - does your POV about traditional Christianity - accept or reject it?"

Gracia Singh said:

So as of right now, I'm coming to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is basically impossible. Protestants, while claiming Scripture Alone, are informed theologically by a massive library of very diverse theologians, authors, TV personalities, radio personalities, and pastors as diverse as John Calvin and Joyce Meyer who basically tell their audience what the Bible says, what it means, and how to live it out.

Click to expand...

The problem with sola scriptura is the same as the problem with Tradition. There simply isn’t any oracle, i.e. a place you can go to get guaranteed answers to questions, in the terms you want to put the question.

The problem with using Scripture as an oracle is that it tends to say different things in different places. Look at salvation. We have passages in Scripture that even taking context into account point to faith as the key and obedience to Christ as the key. On most controversial questions you can find evidence in both directions. So we have to synthesize everything to come up with an answer, and there are varying ways to do that.

But just because we have issues in dealing with the witnesses doesn’t mean that we can deem tradition to be an oracle. Naming one guy as the final authority guarantees a single answer, but that doesn’t mean that the answer is right. Indeed there are pretty clear demonstrations that it’s not (the assumption of the virgin Mary, e.g.)

The best thing we can do is admit that we don’t have an oracle, and approach all of our sources critically. The community that does that hasn’t come up with complete agreement, of course. But theology among the mainline churches has tended to converge over time, and I think the uncertainty is acceptable.

In such a critical approach to sources, Scripture plays an essential part, because it’s the best information we have on Jesus’ life and teachings, and God’s actions with Israel. Christian experience is important. So is scholarship. But in the end, it’s Jesus that shows us God. Hence critical approaches tend to be sola scriptura, in the sense that they have to start with Scripture as a witness, even though they assess the witnesses in Scripture critically. But whatever you think of the witnesses, it makes no sense to just ignore them and make up your own “alternative facts”.

Gracia Singh said:

So as of right now, I'm coming to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is basically impossible. Protestants, while claiming Scripture Alone, are informed theologically by a massive library of very diverse theologians, authors, TV personalities, radio personalities, and pastors as diverse as John Calvin and Joyce Meyer who basically tell their audience what the Bible says, what it means, and how to live it out.

What's the difference between this and Tradition interpreting Scripture? Because the points of Calvinism are no where spelled out point by point in Scripture, line by line, yet Christians adhering to Reformed Soteriology interpret the Bible through the thoughts and writings of Calvin and others. Likewise Protestants generally interpret the Scriptures through the lens of Sola Fide, in spite of numerous verses that seem to indicate that our works in Christ *do* determine where we go when we die.

So in light of all this, why get upset by Catholics and Orthodox who interpret Scripture through their Tradition, when Protestants do the exact same thing, essentially? Thoughts?

Click to expand...

interpretation of the bible is culturally based and the expression of the church is also culturally based so although should always agree it's going to look different over the years. Paul shows us that the gospel is supracultural and should be free to be expressed differently based on the context

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 ESV said:

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

Click to expand...

What does a church look like when we become "as one outside the law" in order to show the gospel to them in ways they understand? What does it look like when we "became weak [to] win the weak" or we become "non-Catholic" to win a non-Catholic? Our only condition, as Paul reveals, is that we remain "under the law of Christ". Once the gospel is accepted in these cultures what then? They all become Catholic, Baptist, Orthodox, Pentecostal? Such a motive would be counter-productive to the gospel. The gospel is not about establishing our flavour of the church it is about Christ and we are called to surrender our own identities, even our identities of our tradition, to follow Christ. I'm not talking about protesting doctrine but instead following Christ where God has placed you.

I just want to point out, in order to prevent misunderstanding, that Orthodoxy is not about "flavor". An Orthodox Church in Africa looks and sounds rather different from one in Greece, which looks and sounds different from one in Russia.

But yes, there are certain things about how we "do Church" that are going to be the same, because the Liturgy is focused on delivering the Word and receiving Communion, prayers, and worship. That never changes. And the beliefs, so also the interpretation of foundational passages of Scripture, will always be the same, and those things we value in our practice, such as prayers, humility, sanctification, will always be the same.

But cultures are respected. This does tend to get blurred in the US, because Orthodoxy has always travelled to every other place in history as a mission, but in the US this was true only for a few areas, such as Alaska. In the US, it was brought mostly by immigrants who sought a new life and brought their culture and community with them, as many others were doing, into the "melting pot" that was the US. So in the case of America, the perception of Orthodoxy is not typical as it has always been since the Church was first established.

~Anastasia~ said:

I just want to point out, in order to prevent misunderstanding, that Orthodoxy is not about "flavor". An Orthodox Church in Africa looks and sounds rather different from one in Greece, which looks and sounds different from one in Russia.

But yes, there are certain things about how we "do Church" that are going to be the same, because the Liturgy is focused on delivering the Word and receiving Communion, prayers, and worship. That never changes. And the beliefs, so also the interpretation of foundational passages of Scripture, will always be the same, and those things we value in our practice, such as prayers, humility, sanctification, will always be the same.

But cultures are respected. This does tend to get blurred in the US, because Orthodoxy has always travelled to every other place in history as a mission, but in the US this was true only for a few areas, such as Alaska. In the US, it was brought mostly by immigrants who sought a new life and brought their culture and community with them, as many others were doing, into the "melting pot" that was the US. So in the case of America, the perception of Orthodoxy is not typical as it has always been since the Church was first established.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying that the Orthodox church has penetrated various cultures and people groups and those groups have their own uniqueness to them ie. culture. However my suggestion that the gospel is supracultural goes beyond this. When we say Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Methodist, etc... there are unique elements in these these traditions that are parabiblical and these elements are not the culture of the people but instead the culture of the tradition.

Paul tells us that we need to be ready to step outside of our culture and into another so that we can show the gospel to them; an early model of contextualization. This casting off our culture is not something that should be taken lightly and it takes time to become self aware of our own culture as well as understand the foreign culture where the gospel is being presented. This doesn't have to mean "overseas" and could be as close as your own neighbour. Inevitably traces of own culture will always remain but what we should be proclaiming the gospel in a way that is tailored to the culture we are speaking into and shedding our own tradition's culture is undoubtedly a part of this.

There is a lot of overlap with tradition and culture. The Orthodox church is full of tradition and so it is also full of culture. What do we carry when we present the gospel to others a banner of the Orthodox church (or some other church) or Christ. To the unorthodox we need to become unorthodox so that we may show them the gospel, otherwise they just hear a noise.

hedrick said:

The problem with sola scriptura is the same as the problem with Tradition. There simply isn’t any oracle, i.e. a place you can go to get guaranteed answers to questions, in the terms you want to put the question.

Click to expand...

This strikes me as the same reply made by many Catholics or other people who don't know what Sola Scriptura means. I am doubtful that you are in their category, but the statement is familiar. Tradition is a huge, malleable, indefinite mass of ideas PLUS some that aren't traditional all but are considered to be so. One communion or church selects from this vague mass whatever it wants and declares doctrines on that basis. Another one does the same, and they come up with different doctrines, all the while claiming the authority of "Tradition." And this is the method--creating doctrine on the basis of what is supposed to be some identifiable historical record.

But Sola Scriptura is entirely different. It stands for the word of God as ultimate in authority, but it does not suppose that everybody has equal reading or comprehension abilities, does not suppose that each of us are required to decide for ourselves what is God's revelation, does not feature different people using different Bibles to decide. None of that. The Bible is the authority; use it instead of something else. That's Sola Scriptura. Once we have the source of our guidance straight, all those other issues can be addressed, but they're not part of the authority.

The problem with using Scripture as an oracle is that it tends to say different things in different places. Look at salvation.

Click to expand...

That's not a problem with Sola Scriptura. That's not a problem with Scripture, either. It's a problem with the people who read it.

That's the same problem as exists with Tradition BTW, yet we're always being told that no one can agree on what Scripture says as though there's any agreement on its alternative, Tradition. We have several different "Tradition" church bodies teaching entirely different sets of doctrines and each of them claims to have determined these doctrines by use of Tradition!

DamianWarS said:

I understand what you're saying that the Orthodox church has penetrated various cultures and people groups and those groups have their own uniqueness to them ie. culture. However my suggestion that the gospel is supracultural goes beyond this. When we say Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Methodist, etc... there are unique elements in these these traditions that are parabiblical and these elements are not the culture of the people but instead the culture of the tradition.

Paul tells us that we need to be ready to step outside of our culture and into another so that we can show the gospel to them; an early model of contextualization. This casting off our culture is not something that should be taken lightly and it takes time to become self aware of our own culture as well as understand the foreign culture where the gospel is being presented. This doesn't have to mean "overseas" and could be as close as your own neighbour. Inevitably traces of own culture will always remain but what we should be proclaiming the gospel in a way that is tailored to the culture we are speaking into and shedding our own tradition's culture is undoubtedly a part of this.

There is a lot of overlap with tradition and culture. The Orthodox church is full of tradition and so it is also full of culture. What do we carry when we present the gospel to others a banner of the Orthodox church (or some other church) or Christ. To the unorthodox we need to become unorthodox so that we may show them the gospel, otherwise they just hear a noise.

Click to expand...

It's rather hard to address generalities.

Style of music? Certainly, it can and does change for cultures.

Core beliefs, the things we pray for? The first must not change, the second is the same for us all anyway.

If you mean simply meet people AS people, then certainly. We are Christian, first and foremost. We should show them the love of Christ, not be primarily concerned with them joining our particular Church. I for one needed certain stepping stones on the way - God knew what He was doing, and I can acknowledge that in others. But we must not compromise Truth for that either. It's a balancing act, and unless we talk specifics, we may be speaking past one another.

Albion said:

Tradition is a huge, malleable, indefinite mass of ideas PLUS some that aren't traditional all but are considered to be so.

Click to expand...

Nailed it. This is the problem with anything other than SS.

People pick and choose (or their group chose in days past) their tradition from a sea of traditions. They quote "fathers" they agree with and ignore the others; therefore, the same issue exists. Protestants can be accused of having 1,000 different interpretations, and traditionalists can be accused of have a thousand different traditions, or sources of them.

Of course ... SS isn't a tradition of any kind, and is found clearly spelled out in Scripture (as it must be if it's to be believed) ... where was that verse again?