Patristics on Sola Scriptura?

[AMM]

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler

“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)

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

"Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."--St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, Part 1, Question 1, Article 8

 

[FenderTL5]

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

It's interesting that someone else made an almost identical post (to the quoted part of your OP) on our forum recently. It's found here: (linkage).

I came from a recent form of sola scriptura heritage, one that borders on 'solo scriptura'.
The more I studied, the more I questioned it. However, I had not thought of it in the progression you laid out. I can see the reasoning and it does make sense.

 

[ArmyMatt]

the problem with that site is it does not say to search the Scriptures alone. searching the Scriptures first and foremost is one thing, but not alone. plus most of the Fathers listed there also contributed to the Holy Tradition in other ways. Sts John. Chrysostom and Basil the Great wrote Liturgies, Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lecturers are read during Bright Week, John of Damascus wrote hymns and defended icons.

the problem is Scripture is the centerpiece of Holy Tradition and not opposed to it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I still need to find again that quote from Luther on Sola Scriptura. I was very taken aback when I read it, and made a post on CF. I also came from an interpretation that was more like solO scriptura, and when I read Luther, I was trying to determine the difference between his words and Orthodoxy. I don't recall that I ever got an answer.

But Luther said something like (paraphrasing) that Scripture, when understood/interpreted as the Church had always understood it, was authoritative in a way that could not be contradicted.

It's been a few years, so I might not be saying it as he intended. But he definitely mentioned being "informed by Tradition" (which might have been the exact words used in part of the statement.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

And along with that I have to agree that there IS no "Scripture vs Tradition" contest for us. Tradition is that which was handed down directly from the Apostles/early Church, and was accepted and believed by the entire Church. Scripture is by definition part of that. In fact, surely that is how the NT came to BE Scripture.

 

[All4Christ]

And along with that I have to agree that there IS no "Scripture vs Tradition" contest for us. Tradition is that which was handed down directly from the Apostles/early Church, and was accepted and believed by the entire Church. Scripture is by definition part of that. In fact, surely that is how the NT came to BE Scripture.

Yes, I agree. That's what is misunderstood by many people I know. They think we consider Holy Tradition to be as important if not more important than Scripture. In reality, Scripture is the highest part of Holy Tradition...it cannot be separated from Holy Tradition. Likewise, Scripture is the core critical element of Holy Tradition.

I've always thought it was more like Prima Scriptura if we use a Western label.

 

[AMM]

the problem with that site is it does not say to search the Scriptures alone. searching the Scriptures first and foremost is one thing, but not alone. plus most of the Fathers listed there also contributed to the Holy Tradition in other ways. Sts John. Chrysostom and Basil the Great wrote Liturgies, Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lecturers are read during Bright Week, John of Damascus wrote hymns and defended icons.

the problem is Scripture is the centerpiece of Holy Tradition and not opposed to it.

Well Gregory of Nyssa does use the word "alone" explicitly, and the sentiment of the other quotes seems the same.
I guess I have two questions:
(1) Would you say that these are arguments against private revelation being authoritative (i.e. visions, dreams, etc.) rather than arguments for sola scriptura? (I can see how that would be the case)
(2) Is there anything objectionable, from an orthodox standpoint, to any those quotes?

I still need to find again that quote from Luther on Sola Scriptura. I was very taken aback when I read it, and made a post on CF. I also came from an interpretation that was more like solO scriptura, and when I read Luther, I was trying to determine the difference between his words and Orthodoxy. I don't recall that I ever got an answer.

But Luther said something like (paraphrasing) that Scripture, when understood/interpreted as the Church had always understood it, was authoritative in a way that could not be contradicted.

It's been a few years, so I might not be saying it as he intended. But he definitely mentioned being "informed by Tradition" (which might have been the exact words used in part of the statement.)

Yeah, that's sort of what I meant in the OP saying that the Lutheran and Orthodox views are actually quite similar in theory (though in practice the Lutheran view is... let's just say suboptimal). We certainly hold tradition in a high regard, but we'd argue that tradition can err, whereas scripture cannot, so Scripture gets the final say in matters of doctrine.
Of course, we also appeal to the Vicentian Canon (I think that's what it's called) and are very cautious when we go against old practices and teachings in the church.

And along with that I have to agree that there IS no "Scripture vs Tradition" contest for us. Tradition is that which was handed down directly from the Apostles/early Church, and was accepted and believed by the entire Church. Scripture is by definition part of that. In fact, surely that is how the NT came to BE Scripture.

I like that understanding. I recently explained to someone (and then had to defend my Lutheranism haha) that, yes the Church did create the Scriptures and pass them down to us. While at the same time, the Church was born of the Word and the Scriptures were how many joined the Church. It's not an either-or, "which came first" debate. Christ established a church. And his apostles wrote the Scriptures in that Church to form that Church and to protect that Church from error. Subsequently, the Church kept those Scriptures, passed them down, and guarded them from error of interpretation.

So I'd agree; in theory it is not a contest between them.

Yes, I agree. That's what is misunderstood by many people I know. They think we consider Holy Tradition to be as important if not more important than Scripture. In reality, Scripture is the highest part of Holy Tradition...it cannot be separated from Holy Tradition. Likewise, Scripture is the core critical element of Holy Tradition.

I've always thought it was more like Prima Scriptura if we use a Western label.

I've had that misconception about y'all before. Sometimes it still seems like you elevate Tradition over Scripture, but I know that's not really what y'all do. It just sounds that way to a westerner's ears at many times.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well Gregory of Nyssa does use the word "alone" explicitly, and the sentiment of the other quotes seems the same.

he says we look to that which harmonize with them alone. he does not say Scriptures alone. the other quote says that the dogmas must agree with Scripture, which means there are things other than Scripture. and again, those saints contributed a lot to what is authoritative in the Church that was not Scripture. Scripture being the prime authority is not the same as sole authority.

(1) Would you say that these are arguments against private revelation being authoritative (i.e. visions, dreams, etc.) rather than arguments for sola scriptura? (I can see how that would be the case)

could very well be, yes.

(2) Is there anything objectionable, from an orthodox standpoint, to any those quotes?

as far as the quotes concerning Scripture? no, aside from Aquinas, who was not a Father of the Church. the issue is that Holy Tradition will not contradict the Scriptures. if it did, it would not be Holy Tradition.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I've had that misconception about y'all before. Sometimes it still seems like you elevate Tradition over Scripture, but I know that's not really what y'all do. It just sounds that way to a westerner's ears at many times.

Just want to say, it's always good to be aware of how we might be being understood (or misunderstood) by what we say. Being a convert, I think I was particularly conscious of that. But at times I guess the immersion into Orthodoxy causes me to forget a different mindset, so I may need reminding.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

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



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

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

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

Spoiler

“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)

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

"Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."--St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, Part 1, Question 1, Article 8

It doesn't make sense to claim that Scripture replaces the Pope because that confuses two different types of authority. In Catholicism, the Pope has formal authority to interpret a material authority which is Scripture. In Protestantism, the Pope has not been replaced with Scripture, but rather with the individual, with each believer becoming his own formal authority regarding Scripture. That is because Scripture doesn't interpret itself, any more that the US Constitution interprets itself. The Bible doesn't tell us, for example, what the Canon of Scripture is; rather, a formal authority (such as the Church, or the Pope or the individual) does.

So the key question for Luther (and for Protestants in general) from an Orthodox perspective is this: is the judgement of the individual normative regarding Scripture or is the judgement of the Church normative? If the individual trumps the Church, the Protestant adherent to Sola Scriptura must show that Scripture actually teaches this, that is, a right of private judgement. Of course, if it actually did (and it does not), then the Council of Jerusalem would have been unnecessary, since if each individual should interpret Scripture normatively, then there is no need for a Church council.

 

[All4Christ]

I've had that misconception about y'all before. Sometimes it still seems like you elevate Tradition over Scripture, but I know that's not really what y'all do. It just sounds that way to a westerner's ears at many times.

Believe me I understand...I felt the same way for a long time!

 

[AMM]

he says we look to that which harmonize with them alone. he does not say Scriptures alone. the other quote says that the dogmas must agree with Scripture, which means there are things other than Scripture. and again, those saints contributed a lot to what is authoritative in the Church that was not Scripture. Scripture being the prime authority is not the same as sole authority.



could very well be, yes.



as far as the quotes concerning Scripture? no, aside from Aquinas, who was not a Father of the Church. the issue is that Holy Tradition will not contradict the Scriptures. if it did, it would not be Holy Tradition.

Okay, so what you're saying is how I already interpret the quotes from a Lutheran perspective. I think you're criticizing the "me and my bible" view, which as previously stated, is not the Lutheran view.
I'm learning that the difference is the Orthodox treat Scripture as the "prime authority" and Lutherans treat it as the "infallible authority". These are both very similar - in both cases, we elevate Scripture above the other aspects of tradition. However, our view leaves the door open to anti-traditionalism, contemporary worship, eschewing the liturgy, etc., whereas the Orthodox view does not, because those would go against the other aspects of your tradition, which also should not be broken. (I could say the same about Lutheran attitudes toward tradition, but experience shows that clearly we don't have a problem, as a whole body, to do such tragic things.)

And yeah, I know Aquinas is Western. I just forgot to remove his quote.

It doesn't make sense to claim that Scripture replaces the Pope because that confuses two different types of authority. In Catholicism, the Pope has formal authority to interpret a material authority which is Scripture. In Protestantism, the Pope has not been replaced with Scripture, but rather with the individual, with each believer becoming his own formal authority regarding Scripture. That is because Scripture doesn't interpret itself, any more that the US Constitution interprets itself. The Bible doesn't tell us, for example, what the Canon of Scripture is; rather, a formal authority (such as the Church, or the Pope or the individual) does.

So the key question for Luther (and for Protestants in general) from an Orthodox perspective is this: is the judgement of the individual normative regarding Scripture or is the judgement of the Church normative? If the individual trumps the Church, the Protestant adherent to Sola Scriptura must show that Scripture actually teaches this, that is, a right of private judgement. Of course, if it actually did (and it does not), then the Council of Jerusalem would have been unnecessary, since if each individual should interpret Scripture normatively, then there is no need for a Church council.

Right. Like I said before, Lutheranism =/= Protestantism. We are almost as far from the "me and my bible" position as the Orthodox or Rome are. So please, I ask you to try to deal with Lutherans' actual position, not a strawman. And I'll try to do the same for y'all. Thanks.

As the case may be (accept it or not), Lutherans do teach that 'Scripture interprets Scripture". Whether or not that's true is a separate discussion. (We do have our reasons to explain this view. I invite you over to TCL and more specifically the confessional subgroup if you want to have a debate about this. Alternatively we can go to St. Justin's or even to my previous thread that led me to this thought, about the filioque. Post #13 in that thread develops my idea in more detail.)

The way Luther and Lutherans would answer that is by saying that, in fact, it is the judgment of the Church that is normative. We also appeal to the Vicentian canon (I think that's what it's called - that's the second time I've said that today, so maybe I should check if that's actually what it's called lol).

Your points would be phenomenal if you were writing against an anti-tradition "me and my bible" protestant group. Lutherans aren't that.

 

[All4Christ]

Okay, so what you're saying is how I already interpret the quotes from a Lutheran perspective. I think you're criticizing the "me and my bible" view, which as previously stated, is not the Lutheran view.
I'm learning that the difference is the Orthodox treat Scripture as the "prime authority" and Lutherans treat it as the "infallible authority". These are both very similar - in both cases, we elevate Scripture above the other aspects of tradition. However, our view leaves the door open to anti-traditionalism, contemporary worship, eschewing the liturgy, etc., whereas the Orthodox view does not, because those would go against the other aspects of your tradition, which also should not be broken. (I could say the same about Lutheran attitudes toward tradition, but experience shows that clearly we don't have a problem, as a whole body, to do such tragic things.)

And yeah, I know Aquinas is Western. I just forgot to remove his quote.


Right. Like I said before, Lutheranism =/= Protestantism. We are almost as far from the "me and my bible" position as the Orthodox or Rome are. So please, I ask you to try to deal with Lutherans' actual position, not a strawman. And I'll try to do the same for y'all. Thanks.

As the case may be (accept it or not), Lutherans do teach that 'Scripture interprets Scripture". Whether or not that's true is a separate discussion. (We do have our reasons to explain this view. I invite you over to TCL and more specifically the confessional subgroup if you want to have a debate about this. Alternatively we can go to St. Justin's or even to my previous thread that led me to this thought, about the filioque. Post #13 in that thread develops my idea in more detail.)

The way Luther and Lutherans would answer that is by saying that, in fact, it is the judgment of the Church that is normative. We also appeal to the Vicentian canon (I think that's what it's called - that's the second time I've said that today, so maybe I should check if that's actually what it's called lol).

Your points would be phenomenal if you were writing against an anti-tradition "me and my bible" protestant group. Lutherans aren't that.

I've found (through my conversations in Traditional Theology when it was still more traditional) that Lutherans seem to have a range of where they fall in these matters. Some of the more evangelical Lutherans seem to place less importance on using Tradition to assist in interpretation of Scripture, and can even resemble some Evangelical churches. Others such as the LCMS have significant similarities to our view.

That's just what I've seen here and irl. It may not be representative across all of Lutheranism. Honestly I was happily surprised as to how many similarities the LCMS has with Orthodoxy. I start to wonder what would have happened if there was a stronger Orthodox presence in Western Europe back in the 1500s...

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Okay, so what you're saying is how I already interpret the quotes from a Lutheran perspective. I think you're criticizing the "me and my bible" view, which as previously stated, is not the Lutheran view.
I'm learning that the difference is the Orthodox treat Scripture as the "prime authority" and Lutherans treat it as the "infallible authority". These are both very similar - in both cases, we elevate Scripture above the other aspects of tradition. However, our view leaves the door open to anti-traditionalism, contemporary worship, eschewing the liturgy, etc., whereas the Orthodox view does not, because those would go against the other aspects of your tradition, which also should not be broken. (I could say the same about Lutheran attitudes toward tradition, but experience shows that clearly we don't have a problem, as a whole body, to do such tragic things.)

And yeah, I know Aquinas is Western. I just forgot to remove his quote.


Right. Like I said before, Lutheranism =/= Protestantism. We are almost as far from the "me and my bible" position as the Orthodox or Rome are. So please, I ask you to try to deal with Lutherans' actual position, not a strawman. And I'll try to do the same for y'all. Thanks.

As the case may be (accept it or not), Lutherans do teach that 'Scripture interprets Scripture". Whether or not that's true is a separate discussion. (We do have our reasons to explain this view. I invite you over to TCL and more specifically the confessional subgroup if you want to have a debate about this. Alternatively we can go to St. Justin's or even to my previous thread that led me to this thought, about the filioque. Post #13 in that thread develops my idea in more detail.)

The way Luther and Lutherans would answer that is by saying that, in fact, it is the judgment of the Church that is normative. We also appeal to the Vicentian canon (I think that's what it's called - that's the second time I've said that today, so maybe I should check if that's actually what it's called lol).

Your points would be phenomenal if you were writing against an anti-tradition "me and my bible" protestant group. Lutherans aren't that.

I am not arguing a straw man. I understand what Lutheranism teaches, as I was one for much of my life.

I was specifically responding to the your notion that Scripture replaces the Pope. It cannot, as I have suggested, because Scripture doesn't interpret Scripture. You say it does, but I have already given you an example of how it clearly isn't a sufficient formal authority, for it doesn't teach us what the Canon is.

Moreover, Lutherans may teach "Scripture teaches Scripture, but by what authority do they do so? If Scripture replaces the Pope, then one would have to appeal to Scripture for this, wouldn't you. Yet Scripture doesn't teach that "Scripture teaches Scripture". So it is self-defeating.

Does the Vincentian Canon teach this? I think not.

I don't actually think the Scripture as the "prime authority" versus the "infallible authority" is an important or clear distinction regarding the difference between Lutheranism versus Orthodoxy. Orthodox may believe Scripture is infallible as a material authority as well. But is it the only material authority? Clearly not, it is part of Tradition, and only appeared in its present form in the 4th Century.

And who decides, who has formal authority to interpret Scripture? In so far as Lutheranism's understanding of Scripture deviates from that of the Church, then it is exercising a right to supersede the Church in its private judgement of Scripture. As such, Lutheranism's Prima Scriptura collapses into Sola Scriptura very quickly, no matter how much lip service it may give to St. Vincent of Lyon.

So, I think Scripture doesn't replace the Pope (to return to the OP), but rather the private individual ("little Pope") replaces the Pope (though apparently guided by the Holy Spirit).

 

[FenderTL5]

Christ established a church. And his apostles wrote the Scriptures in that Church to form that Church and to protect that Church from error. Subsequently, the Church kept those Scriptures, passed them down, and guarded them from error of interpretation.

I may have to borrow that sometime in the future.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm learning that the difference is the Orthodox treat Scripture as the "prime authority" and Lutherans treat it as the "infallible authority".

right, the Holy Tradition is the infallible authority, since the Holy Tradition is the life of the Holy Spirit within the Church. the Holy Scriptures are the centerpiece of that Holy Tradition.

 

[AMM]

I am not arguing a straw man. I understand what Lutheranism teaches, as I was one for much of my life.

Okay, and not to turn this into a denomination debate, but what kind? And were you a very high-church, traditional, orthodox (not eastern) Lutheran? Because as stated by A4C, there's a lot of variation within the umbrella term "lutheranism".

I was specifically responding to the your notion that Scripture replaces the Pope. It cannot, as I have suggested, because Scripture doesn't interpret Scripture. You say it does, but I have already given you an example of how it clearly isn't a sufficient formal authority, for it doesn't teach us what the Canon is.

First, self-definition is not a requirement for something to be a formal authority, but now we're debating logic, not theology.
Second, I would disagree. Sure, it doesn't give us a table of contents, but Scripture does teach that the prophetic and apostolic writings are Scripture. One of Peter's epistle and John's gospel teaches this. So at some point you have to "take their word for it" so to speak that the documents are actually written by the person who they claim to be written by.

Moreover, Lutherans may teach "Scripture teaches Scripture, but by what authority do they do so? If Scripture replaces the Pope, then one would have to appeal to Scripture for this, wouldn't you. Yet Scripture doesn't teach that "Scripture teaches Scripture". So it is self-defeating.

We would say that Scripture does in fact teach that it is self-interpreting and needs no further illumination. We have Scripture passages to support this view. I quote from one of our doctrinal books:

Holy Scripture is its own authentic and infallible interpreter. The light, Ps 119:105, 2 Pet. 1:19, needs no illumination. The true interpretation of Scripture consists in calling attention to, and reaffirming, the plain statements of Scripture, in letting Scriptures speak for itself, in taking "the words as they read, in their proper and plain sense" (FC SD VII 45), and in ruling out everything that conflicts with the analogy of faith, that is, with the "clear passages of Scripture" (Ap XXVII 60), which set forth the doctrine of faith. Scripture is not waiting for any human interpreters, for any individual or church council, or for reason to determine its true sense. It refuses to submit its statements and declarations to the interpretation and adjudication of any human reason. "No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation," 2 Pet. 1:20; Jer 23:31-32....

From Engelder, Theodore E.W. (1934). Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. p. 29., Graebner, Augustus Lawrence (1910).

In another document (I apologize for poor formatting):

PERSPICUITY.

Sec. 15. The _perspicuity_ of the Bible is that clearness of
Holy Writ which renders all the doctrines and precepts laid
down in the inspired Word freely accessible to every reader
or hearer of average human intelligence and sufficient knowl-
edge of the languages employed, and of a mind not in a
manner preoccupied by error as to preclude the apprehen-
sion of the truths themselves, however clearly set forth in
words of human speech.

Ps. 119, 105: _Thy Word_ is a _lamp_ unto my feet, and a _light_ unto
my path.

Ps. 119, 130: The entrance of Thy words _giveth light_; it _giveth
understanding_ unto the _simple_.

2 Pet. 1, 19: We have also a more sure _word of prophecy_; where-
unto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto _a light that shineth in a
dark place_, until the day dawn and the day-star arise in your hearts.

Ps. 19, 8: The statues of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart:
the commandment of the Lord is pure, _enlightening the eyes_.

Eph. 3, 3. 4: How that by revelation He made known unto me
the mystery; as _I wrote_ afore in few words, whereby, _when ye read,
ye may understand_ my knowledge of the mystery of Christ.

John 8, 31. 32: Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on
Him, If ye continue in my Word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
and _ye shall know the truth_, and the truth shall make you free.

2 Cor. 4, 3. 4: But _if our Gospel be hid_, it is hid _to them that
are lost_: in whom the god of this world hath _blinded the minds _ of
them which believe not, let the _light of the glorious Gospel_ of Christ,
who is the image of God, should _shine_ unto them.

John 8, 43-45. 47: _Why do ye not understand my speech_? Even
--------------------End of Page 11--------------------
because _ye cannot hear my Word_. Ye are of your father, the devil,
and the lusts of your father _ye will do_. He was a murderer from the
beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in
him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a
liar, and the father of it. And _because I tell you the truth, ye believe
me not_. (47) He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore
hear them not, _because ye are not of God_.

2 Pet. 3, 15. 16: Even as our beloved brother Paul also according
to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also _in all
his epistles_, speaking in them of these things; _in which are some
things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and un-
stable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures_, unto their own de-
struction.

From Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 11–12. Archived from the original on 2006-07-12.

You're more than welcome to disagree. I'm not even sure that I agree (if you've been paying attention to my posts, I'm a potential convert and things like you are discouraging me). But the point is to not set up a strawman ("Scripture doesn't teach this so obviously it's self-defeating duh"). Saying that Scripture interprets Scripture is just a way of saying that clearer portions of Scripture can shed light on the less clear. And even if its not in the Bible the principal has merit. Scripture has to be always in context. That includes the use in language translation and historical/ social context when it was written. In other words what the inspired author and of course God through them.

Does the Vincentian Canon teach this? I think not.

That's literally the point of my post. I gave several quotations from the fathers that I believe support sola scriptura (i.e. appealing to Vincentian Canon). And I asked for clarification from you Orthodox about how you interpret those quotations.

I don't actually think the Scripture as the "prime authority" versus the "infallible authority" is an important or clear distinction regarding the difference between Lutheranism versus Orthodoxy. Orthodox may believe Scripture is infallible as a material authority as well. But is it the only material authority? Clearly not, it is part of Tradition, and only appeared in its present form in the 4th Century.

Sorry, I thought that was a clear distinction I was making. I wasn't implying that the Orthodox view is an errant Scripture. I was hoping to have emphasis on "the". The Orthodox view Scripture as the prime authority, but as ArmyMatt said Holy Tradition is the infallible authority for the EO. On the other hand, for Lutherans, we view Scripture as the infallible authority - there is no other. There are other material authorities, but we don't teach that they are infallible, unlike the Orthodox. So for us, Scripture is the only infallible authority.

But you should know all of this, as you say you are a former Lutheran and thus understand Lutheranism.

Also, again, Lutherans aren't "me and my bible" folks. We aren't "bible alone." We don't appeal to the collection of translated (or untranslated as the case may be) texts bound together in a single book with page numbers. We are bound to the prophetic and apostolic writings. So I don't really care if the canon wasn't fully resolved until the 4th century; it was all written in the 1st.

Also, when you say things like Scripture "only appeared in its present form in the 4th century" you sound like one of the conspiracy theorists who argues that Constantine changed the Church, that the Council of Nicea removed books from the bible as a power move, etc. I know that's not what you mean, but I want to point this out to you so if you're talking to the crazy protestants who believe this, you'll know not to reinforce their views.

And who decides, who has formal authority to interpret Scripture? In so far as Lutheranism's understanding of Scripture deviates from that of the Church, then it is exercising a right to supersede the Church in its private judgement of Scripture. As such, Lutheranism's Prima Scriptura collapses into Sola Scriptura very quickly, no matter how much lip service it may give to St. Vincent of Lyon.

This is literally the whole point of my argument.

Also, we never exercised prima scriptura as our principle. We utilize solA scriptura, which often collapses into solO scriptura. I'll concede that.

So, I think Scripture doesn't replace the Pope (to return to the OP), but rather the private individual ("little Pope") replaces the Pope (though apparently guided by the Holy Spirit).

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I see your point. I understand where you're coming from. I don't think this is the case in traditional Lutheranism, and I believe I've explained why. In any case, I don't think our discussion is going to progress any further, because what I teach as Lutheranism is clearly not accepted as Lutheranism to you. You may have been a Lutheran before, but I am a Lutheran now, and that's got to be worth something. Just as I'm sure you would say that Orthodoxy can only be fully understood within Orthodoxy, the same applies to Lutheranism.

+Pax

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Okay, and not to turn this into a denomination debate, but what kind? And were you a very high-church, traditional, orthodox (not eastern) Lutheran? Because as stated by A4C, there's a lot of variation within the umbrella term "lutheranism".


First, self-definition is not a requirement for something to be a formal authority, but now we're debating logic, not theology.
Second, I would disagree. Sure, it doesn't give us a table of contents, but Scripture does teach that the prophetic and apostolic writings are Scripture. One of Peter's epistle and John's gospel teaches this. So at some point you have to "take their word for it" so to speak that the documents are actually written by the person who they claim to be written by.


We would say that Scripture does in fact teach that it is self-interpreting and needs no further illumination. We have Scripture passages to support this view. I quote from one of our doctrinal books:



In another document (I apologize for poor formatting):


You're more than welcome to disagree. I'm not even sure that I agree (if you've been paying attention to my posts, I'm a potential convert and things like you are discouraging me). But the point is to not set up a strawman ("Scripture doesn't teach this so obviously it's self-defeating duh"). Saying that Scripture interprets Scripture is just a way of saying that clearer portions of Scripture can shed light on the less clear. And even if its not in the Bible the principal has merit. Scripture has to be always in context. That includes the use in language translation and historical/ social context when it was written. In other words what the inspired author and of course God through them.


That's literally the point of my post. I gave several quotations from the fathers that I believe support sola scriptura (i.e. appealing to Vincentian Canon). And I asked for clarification from you Orthodox about how you interpret those quotations.


Sorry, I thought that was a clear distinction I was making. I wasn't implying that the Orthodox view is an errant Scripture. I was hoping to have emphasis on "the". The Orthodox view Scripture as the prime authority, but as ArmyMatt said Holy Tradition is the infallible authority for the EO. On the other hand, for Lutherans, we view Scripture as the infallible authority - there is no other. There are other material authorities, but we don't teach that they are infallible, unlike the Orthodox. So for us, Scripture is the only infallible authority.

But you should know all of this, as you say you are a former Lutheran and thus understand Lutheranism.

Also, again, Lutherans aren't "me and my bible" folks. We aren't "bible alone." We don't appeal to the collection of translated (or untranslated as the case may be) texts bound together in a single book with page numbers. We are bound to the prophetic and apostolic writings. So I don't really care if the canon wasn't fully resolved until the 4th century; it was all written in the 1st.

Also, when you say things like Scripture "only appeared in its present form in the 4th century" you sound like one of the conspiracy theorists who argues that Constantine changed the Church, that the Council of Nicea removed books from the bible as a power move, etc. I know that's not what you mean, but I want to point this out to you so if you're talking to the crazy protestants who believe this, you'll know not to reinforce their views.


This is literally the whole point of my argument.

Also, we never exercised prima scriptura as our principle. We utilize solA scriptura, which often collapses into solO scriptura. I'll concede that.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I see your point. I understand where you're coming from. I don't think this is the case in traditional Lutheranism, and I believe I've explained why. In any case, I don't think our discussion is going to progress any further, because what I teach as Lutheranism is clearly not accepted as Lutheranism to you. You may have been a Lutheran before, but I am a Lutheran now, and that's got to be worth something. Just as I'm sure you would say that Orthodoxy can only be fully understood within Orthodoxy, the same applies to Lutheranism.

+Pax

I'm glad you are looking into Orthodoxy and hope you will continue (in spite of me). I walked a similar path a few years ago.

I grew up ELCA, my uncle was a pastor there and my family on both sides were Lutheran going back about 5 centuries. I also attended the state Lutheran churches in Scandinavia when I lived there. They were mostly "medium" churches, neither "high" nor "low", though I have also attended these other types. I personally think "high church" Lutheranism is an uncomfortable synergy with this sort of Anglicanism and not really true to Luther. That's just a personal bias, though, and I think conservative Lutheranism that develops a more liturgical and sacramental approach is a welcome development. It's just not historical Lutheranism, at least one that my family would recognise. I wish Luther and later the Tübingen Lutherans had had greater success in his dialogues with Constantinople, but that is a different topic for another day.

Yes, the Bible does refer to other books in the Bible, but we wouldn't accept just that as the Canon. The Bible does not define our modern NT Canon or even how to select the Canon. Why is Hebrews included? We aren't even sure who wrote it, so "taking their word for it" doesn't help us there. Why not include the Didache, written relatively early, or the letters of St Ignatius of Antioch, who arguably met Christ? My point is that without the Church, we don't get Scripture as we know it today; Sola Scriptura doesn't give us the Athanasian Canon.

Perspicuity clearly doesn't work in practice, with Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all coming to different notions about the Eucharist, the most fundamental act of our worship.

I don't understand your point equating Sola Scriptura with the Vincentian Canon: "gave several quotations from the fathers that I believe support sola scriptura (i.e. appealing to Vincentian Canon)". I suspect you understand St. Vincent in a different way than Orthodox do.

I wrote that Scripture in its present form, ie our modern canon, didn't appear until the 4th Century. Of course these books existed, along with many others. Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers We needed the Church to define the Canon, since Scripture didn't do so.

You don't think Holy Tradition is infallible, but you must agree at least that it was infallible in its choice of the Canon, no? Because if not, then the present Canon could be open to revision. And were that the case, then it could not be considered infallible, for some books could conceivably be removed in the future. This leaves Scripture itself open to change and thus logically, neither infallible nor normative for our Christian lives.

 

[AMM]

I'm glad you are looking into Orthodoxy and hope you will continue (in spite of me). I walked a similar path a few years ago.

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

I grew up ELCA, my uncle was a pastor there and my family on both sides were Lutheran going back about 5 centuries. I also attended the state Lutheran churches in Scandinavia when I lived there. They were mostly "medium" churches, neither "high" nor "low", though I have also attended these other types. I personally think "high church" Lutheranism is an uncomfortable synergy with this sort of Anglicanism and not really true to Luther. That's just a personal bias, though, and I think conservative Lutheranism that develops a more liturgical and sacramental approach is a welcome development. It's just not historical Lutheranism, at least one that my family would recognise. I wish Luther and later the Tübingen Lutherans had had greater success in his dialogues with Constantinople, but that is a different topic for another day.

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

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

Yes, the Bible does refer to other books in the Bible, but we wouldn't accept just that as the Canon. The Bible does not define our modern NT Canon or even how to select the Canon. Why is Hebrews included? We aren't even sure who wrote it, so "taking their word for it" doesn't help us there. Why not include the Didache, written relatively early, or the letters of St Ignatius of Antioch, who arguably met Christ? My point is that without the Church, we don't get Scripture as we know it today; Sola Scriptura doesn't give us the Athanasian Canon.

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

Perspicuity clearly doesn't work in practice, with Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all coming to different notions about the Eucharist, the most fundamental act of our worship.

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

I don't understand your point equating Sola Scriptura with the Vincentian Canon: "gave several quotations from the fathers that I believe support sola scriptura (i.e. appealing to Vincentian Canon)". I suspect you understand St. Vincent in a different way than Orthodox do.

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

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

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

I wrote that Scripture in its present form, ie our modern canon, didn't appear until the 4th Century. Of course these books existed, along with many others. Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers We needed the Church to define the Canon, since Scripture didn't do so.

You don't think Holy Tradition is infallible, but you must agree at least that it was infallible in its choice of the Canon, no? Because if not, then the present Canon could be open to revision. And were that the case, then it could not be considered infallible, for some books could conceivably be removed in the future. This leaves Scripture itself open to change and thus logically, neither infallible nor normative for our Christian lives.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[~Anastasia~]

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

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

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

Do I have that right???