How do Eastern Orthodox feel about Sola Scriptura?

[~Anastasia~]

I wish I knew Greek. By the way, how is the King James Version different from the Original Greek? My mother is also KJV onlyist.

I don't claim to know Greek. I'm only working on it. Doing it on my own (without anything really systematic) is slow going.

But we sing and hear Greek from the Scriptures in every Liturgy. I understand most of those words now (about an hour, hour and a half time to read) and I'm working on learning more. It's slow though.

How they differ? If you compare the KJV to a translation of the Septuagint, it starts to show up.

Septuagint Old Testament Bilingual (Greek / English) - 1

Gen 4:7 Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it? be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt rule over him. (from Septuagint)

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. (KJV)

Doesn't say really the same thing.


Gen 4:13 And Cain said to the Lord God, My crime [is] too great for me to be forgiven. (translated from Septuagint)

Gen 4:13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. (KJV)

Again, not the same.

I just find them as I go. I don't know if there's a compiled list anywhere. And likely there are much larger ones to consider.

I just know enough to want to spend my efforts reading (a translation of) the same Scriptures that Christ quoted from, not a translation from a compilation assembled quite a few centuries later by religious leaders who had a bias against Christianity.

Again, I'm no scholar on all these things. And it might or might not be a good idea to share this with your mother if she is anti-Orthodox and a King-James-Only-ist.

 

[Jackson Cooper]

So Eastern Orthodox love the Bible, but get information from other places as well? Besides the Bible, where are various rules and teachings found?

 

[~Anastasia~]

So Eastern Orthodox love the Bible, but get information from other places as well? Besides the Bible, where are various rules and teachings found?

Orthodoxy is no different from essentially every other Christian group in this sense. They all have commentaries, confessions, fathers of their movement, "prophets", or what have you. Even if they claim "sola scriptura".

For us, we rely most heavily on what the earliest Church leaders wrote while the Church was being established, especially to tell us what the Scriptures mean and what the Church teaches. We also have the writings of very holy people who have dedicated their lives to God (Saints, God-bearing elders, etc.) such that people recognize the grace and gifts of God through them, and these most often guide us in things like seeking God, being healed from sin, etc.

 

[Lukaris]

I know one book that circulated among the early Christians is Enoch ( a small portion is actually quoted in the epistle of Jude). There is a direct Trinitarian passage in it, mention of the intercession of the saints, etc. in it. If I have time later tonight I might further elaborate on this.

The canon was not settled at this point & Enoch just missed the grade probably because it’s author is unknown

 

[truefiction1]

that is very clear and honest, thanks

so, the Orthodox Church asserts a "direct line to heaven", one that bypasses both pope and scripture?

I have always understood Protestants to assert much the same, "a direct line to God in heaven" that bypasses papal hierarchy and guides them... to a truer understanding of Scripture.

Orthodox perceive "a direct line to God in heaven" that bypasses papal hierarchy and guides them... to a truer and fuller experience of Christ's mystical Presence.

Erik, The Orthodox Church takes everything together (i.e. every aspect of Church Life) as a holistic mode of being, which includes the hierarchy as it's skeletal framework (so to speak, with Jesus Christ being the only head), the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God, everything we do and all that we have inherited in our forms of worship (Liturgy) and spiritual life (repentance which must include prayer and fasting, and striving to discern and do God's will), and the presence of the grace of God by the activity of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of all of the faithful. We call this "Holy Tradition", which is not to be confused with the mere "traditions of men". Our Holy Tradition is God breathed, like Scripture is, and by it we are initiated into a blessed mode of being that makes us participants in the Life of the Holy Trinity. We have the Holy Spirit, Who reveals to us the Word (Christ), Who is in the bosom of and reveals to us the Father.

Protestants, generally, do no Live within the holistic environment that Holy Tradition provides. This is the primary difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. They reject Holy Tradition to varying degrees, based upon their individualistic interpretations of Holy Scripture. They have, in many cases, retained some of Holy Tradition, especially in their utilization of Holy Scripture, which even by Itself is a powerful means of entering into Communion with the Holy Trinity by those who obey Him Who gave it.

 

[truefiction1]

The Holy Spirit is very much Alive in the Church, which makes Christ's presence with us a definite reality. The devil is here too, of course, and always does his best to make it appear the God is not present in us. But it's a lie to think or say that God is not present. We always see God here.

 

[Erik Nelson]

yep, that was when St Paul started writing too, nearly a generation after Pentecost and 350 years before the NT accepted codification

the impetus being the expulsion of Jews from Rome and all of the contentious issues motivating the first Jerusalem Council? A growing Church with a next generation of believers requiring authoritative written documents from the original Apostles? Maybe Matthew wrote both an Aramaic and Greek version around the same time?

 

[ArmyMatt]

the impetus being the expulsion of Jews from Rome and all of the contentious issues motivating the first Jerusalem Council? A growing Church with a next generation of believers requiring authoritative written documents from the original Apostles? Maybe Matthew wrote both an Aramaic and Greek version around the same time?

no, St Paul wrote because he was traveling, so he could keep up with his flock. St Matthew was because he drew the lot to take the Gospel to Ethiopia, and they wanted him to leave a record before he left. the Jerusalem council had nothing to do with the Scripture

 

[Erik Nelson]

Erik, The Orthodox Church takes everything together (i.e. every aspect of Church Life) as a holistic mode of being, which includes the hierarchy as it's skeletal framework (so to speak, with Jesus Christ being the only head), the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God, everything we do and all that we have inherited in our forms of worship (Liturgy) and spiritual life (repentance which must include prayer and fasting, and striving to discern and do God's will), and the presence of the grace of God by the activity of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of all of the faithful. We call this "Holy Tradition", which is not to be confused with the mere "traditions of men". Our Holy Tradition is God breathed, like Scripture is, and by it we are initiated into a blessed mode of being that makes us participants in the Life of the Holy Trinity. We have the Holy Spirit, Who reveals to us the Word (Christ), Who is in the bosom of and reveals to us the Father.

Protestants, generally, do no Live within the holistic environment that Holy Tradition provides. This is the primary difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. They reject Holy Tradition to varying degrees, based upon their individualistic interpretations of Holy Scripture. They have, in many cases, retained some of Holy Tradition, especially in their utilization of Holy Scripture, which even by Itself is a powerful means of entering into Communion with the Holy Trinity by those who obey Him Who gave it.

I understand that the Quartodecimanism controversy, between Petrine (Rome & Antioch, founded by Peter, and Alexandria, by Mark the follower of Peter) and Johannine (Asia Minor) diocese, was over when to celebrate Easter.

John, the Beloved Apostle, focused on Friday (until dusk) the 14th of Nisan as the day when Jesus was Crucified as paschal lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple. John focused on the heroic sacrifice Jesus voluntarily submitted to, "for no greater love hath a man than this that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13) "for God so loved the world..." (John 3:16).

Whereas Peter focused on God's triumph over mortality in the Resurrection on Sunday. Perhaps Roman pontiffs like Anicetus & Victor sensed that the churches of Asia Minor were verging on celebrating the Crucifixion itself (and not the heroic sacrifice it represented) ??

 

[truefiction1]

I understand that the Quartodecimanism controversy, between Petrine (Rome & Antioch, founded by Peter, and Alexandria, by Mark the follower of Peter) and Johannine (Asia Minor) diocese, was over when to celebrate Easter.

John, the Beloved Apostle, focused on Friday (until dusk) the 14th of Nisan as the day when Jesus was Crucified as paschal lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple. John focused on the heroic sacrifice Jesus voluntarily submitted to, "for no greater love hath a man than this that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13) "for God so loved the world..." (John 3:16).

Whereas Peter focused on God's triumph over mortality in the Resurrection on Sunday. Perhaps Roman pontiffs like Anicetus & Victor sensed that the churches of Asia Minor were verging on celebrating the Crucifixion itself (and not the heroic sacrifice it represented) ??

It's a good question. I don't know. It's possible. If it could be discerned that this was the case it would be by reading the relevant historical texts regarding the controversy. In my limited knowledge of these writings, I have gotten the impression that the concern of the Petrine bishops was that Christians were observing divergent practices with regard to a very significant aspect of the Life of the Church: the celebration of Pascha, and this caused them to worry about the overall unity of the Church.

I had learned about the controversy during my Church history lessons, but my memory isn't great. I mostly only recall that a Roman Pope was intent on excommunicating the entire Church in Asia over this, but was persuaded to "cool it" by some other bishops. The matter was eventually decided by decrees from councils and the controversy mysteriously disappears at some point before the first Ecumenical council at Nicea.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I understand that the Quartodecimanism controversy, between Petrine (Rome & Antioch, founded by Peter, and Alexandria, by Mark the follower of Peter) and Johannine (Asia Minor) diocese, was over when to celebrate Easter.

John, the Beloved Apostle, focused on Friday (until dusk) the 14th of Nisan as the day when Jesus was Crucified as paschal lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple. John focused on the heroic sacrifice Jesus voluntarily submitted to, "for no greater love hath a man than this that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13) "for God so loved the world..." (John 3:16).

Whereas Peter focused on God's triumph over mortality in the Resurrection on Sunday. Perhaps Roman pontiffs like Anicetus & Victor sensed that the churches of Asia Minor were verging on celebrating the Crucifixion itself (and not the heroic sacrifice it represented) ??

maybe, but when Pope Victor tried to impose on them, it was St Irenaeus of Lyons who rebuked him.

 

[Erik Nelson]

maybe, but when Pope Victor tried to impose on them, it was St Irenaeus of Lyons who rebuked him.

the NT records doctrinal conflicts between the pillar Apostles

prima facie, doctrinal conflicts continued to arise between their schools of followers

conflicts and disagreements are a constant from NT times through the Apostolic era until today

 

[~Anastasia~]

the NT records doctrinal conflicts between the pillar Apostles

prima facie, doctrinal conflicts continued to arise between their schools of followers

conflicts and disagreements are a constant from NT times through the Apostolic era until today

The Church is composed of human beings ...

 

[ArmyMatt]

the NT records doctrinal conflicts between the pillar Apostles

prima facie, doctrinal conflicts continued to arise between their schools of followers

conflicts and disagreements are a constant from NT times through the Apostolic era until today

yep, but the Holy Spirit will always raise someone to champion the Truth.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Church is composed of human beings ...

BTW reading Matt's reply, I may have missed the point.

I only meant it isn't surprising that there are disagreements between people through history, since we are all in process.

Apologies if I misspoke.

 

[truefiction1]

the NT records doctrinal conflicts between the pillar Apostles

prima facie, doctrinal conflicts continued to arise between their schools of followers

conflicts and disagreements are a constant from NT times through the Apostolic era until today

Yes. I remember how I felt when I first read books about the History of Church doctrine (in particular, Jaroslav Pelikan's volumns). The best terminology I can think of right now to describe my impression of the historical road of Orthodoxy is "chaotic conflict". It was difficult for me to understand how it was that any lay Christian could have felt secure in their faith. Now I understand better. There has always been one "constant" remaining through it all: "Christ is in our midst".

 

[Erik Nelson]

I don't myself know how to argue against the leadership primacy of Peter in Acts. He spoke at Pentecost on behalf of the fledgling Church, and remained a pillar of the same even after politics drove him from Jerusalem (Acts 12). He again spoke first at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), and although others spoke after him, none disagreed with him or challenged his position... Though James, the Bishop of the local congregation, exercised some leeway in interpreting and applying Peter's position.

Of course, prior to the Council, Paul, "the least of the Apostles" (1 Cor 15:9), still "opposed Peter to his face" (Gal 2)... Which disputes occasioned the Council, after which the binding ruling of the Council had settled the issue once and for all within the Church, so that the dispute between Peter and Paul must have occurred before the much needed Council.

Very similarly, pope Victor opposed the Johannine Quartodecimist Churches of Asia Minor, and Irenaeus of Lyons rebuked him. Victor then took Irenaeus' righteous side, of preserving Church unity... Much as Peter accepted Paul's position, eventually acknowledging Paul's writings as inspired Scripture (2 Pet 3:16).

Petrine primacy appears consistent with Scripture.

Of course, James the hosting Bishop appears to get credit for passing "judgement", albeit in accord with Peter's statements...

And in 57 AD, Paul stated he was in no way inferior to the pillar Apostles (2 Cor 12:11)...

And in 65 AD, Peter acknowledged Paul's writings as Authoritative...

Peter was first to speak at a Council, yet others, especially the hosting Bishop, unanimously ratifying his position was also important... Just as pope Victor requested the Churches of Asia Minor to ratify his position in 193 AD.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't myself know how to argue against the leadership primacy of Peter in Acts. He spoke at Pentecost on behalf of the fledgling Church, and remained a pillar of the same even after politics drove him from Jerusalem (Acts 12). He again spoke first at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), and although others spoke after him, none disagreed with him or challenged his position... Though James, the Bishop of the local congregation, exercised some leeway in interpreting and applying Peter's position.

Of course, prior to the Council, Paul, "the least of the Apostles" (1 Cor 15:9), still "opposed Peter to his face" (Gal 2)... Which disputes occasioned the Council, after which the binding ruling of the Council had settled the issue once and for all within the Church, so that the dispute between Peter and Paul must have occurred before the much needed Council.

Very similarly, pope Victor opposed the Johannine Quartodecimist Churches of Asia Minor, and Irenaeus of Lyons rebuked him. Victor then took Irenaeus' righteous side, of preserving Church unity... Much as Peter accepted Paul's position, eventually acknowledging Paul's writings as inspired Scripture (2 Pet 3:16).

Petrine primacy appears consistent with Scripture.

Of course, James the hosting Bishop appears to get credit for passing "judgement", albeit in accord with Peter's statements...

And in 57 AD, Paul stated he was in no way inferior to the pillar Apostles (2 Cor 12:11)...

And in 65 AD, Peter acknowledged Paul's writings as Authoritative...

Peter was first to speak at a Council, yet others, especially the hosting Bishop, unanimously ratifying his position was also important... Just as pope Victor requested the Churches of Asia Minor to ratify his position in 193 AD.

the examples of Petrine headship you showed are how we view his headship and the current headship of Constantinople, which is not how Rome defined it in Vatican I. this shows our ecclesiology.