Sola Scriptura..."norma normans"

[Ignatius21]

This thread is a spin-off from a discussion that started some time ago, and eventually led to a very focused discussion with a Lutheran who proposed a very precise definition of what sola scriptura (hereafter, SS) is, and what it is not. I will attempt to do my best to interact with it. He mentioned in a past thread that he had converted from Roman Catholicism to Lutheranism...from not-SS to SS. I, myself, recently converted from Presbyterianism to Orthodoxy...from SS to not-SS. So perhaps we passed each other on the way

The definition of what SS is and is not, together with examples, are here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/.

I would encourage everyone who responds to this thread: please do not respond unless you have read this proposed definition in its entirety. Thoughtful posts require thoughtful ...and respectful...responses.

So............................

The proposed definition above begins by quoting a standard and historic Lutheran confession:

Here is the official, historic definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (ditto, 3).

Emphasis, mine.

Before I go further, I will state a few questions:

1. According to what sole norm, is this definition the "official, historic definition?"
2. To whom do the terms "we," "ourselves" and "among us" refer, and
3. Do those terms not immediately imply that this "rule" applies only within a given community of people who mutually subscribe to it?

Continuing with a few other points, the post continues:

What it IS:

1. An embrace of accountability for the doctrines among us (especially those in dispute).

2. An embrace of norming (the process of examining positions for truth, correctness, validity).

3. An embrace of Scripture as the best, most sound rule/canon/norma normans for this process.

For the time being, I will say that I do not think that...as worded...the Orthodox would object. After all, statements rather similar to these can be found among some church fathers, such as:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Athanasius; Against the Heathen, I:3.

The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.

Athanasius, De Synodis.

Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.

Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, IV:17.

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.

We will note that these quotes, like the Lutheran formulation quoted above, make frequent reference to "we," "us," "ourselves" and the like.

The post continues to define what SS is not, which include (my paraphrase) exhaustive knowledge of everything that Christ and the apostles ever said or did, as well as the limits of the canon (SS applied when written Scripture was nothing more than two stone tablets). Likewise it is emphatically stated that it does NOT include (within itself) the method of hermeneutics or any formal process by which this "norma normans" may be applied to the resolution of disputes.

At this point I will say that his definition of what SS is not, immediately disarms a vast majority of arguments supposedly refuting SS...things like "John's gospel says that Jesus said and did other stuff...that isn't in the Bible...so SS must be false." Please...the Reformers were not simpletons.

Lastly it gives examples, such as two men who wish to determine the height of a wall they've just built. If the standard is one man who gets to say whether it is, or isn't, 8 feet high, then the definition of "foot" is irrelevant. But if the standard exists outside of any particular individual, then any and all builders are accountable to that one standard.

As such I believe SS attempts to do the same thing...and that, largely in reaction against the RCC, is to locate a transcendent and infallible norm of truth that is utterly above, beyond and outside of any human institution...one that in no way derives its authenticity or authority from man, but only from God.

So, this definition makes a very nuanced distinction...SS is a practice, not a doctrine as such. SS "works" with any canon, any hermeneutic, what have you...and so long as those parameters are rightly discerned and applied (I would reason) everything operates according to God's own truth. Why Scripture? Well, because it is the one thing that all Christians, everywhere, at all times have agreed is THE written and unchangeable record of God's revelation. It is, we might say, THE divinely ordained kilogram against which all other weights are to be compared, measured, found lacking and corrected.

Who could argue with such a thing?

My objection, then, is not so much with the idea that we should be normed by God's truth and God's truth alone. My objection is that, by formulating such a philosophically precise and nuanced definition, we have actually produced something that is unworkable in any kind of practice. We can distinguish between "theory" and "practice" in philosophy, but here in the real world where we live, move and have our being, we cannot separate them. And SS believers acknowledge the same....but having defined the term so carefully, they have set up something that can never be blamed for any failure of men. No matter how badly we may fail at applying SS, SS itself can't ever be blamed. Essentially (though they would not state this), to blame SS is to blame Scripture, which is to blame God himself...and such is unthinkable.

At this point I will end this first post and then add others quickly...I'm scared to death that the browser will close and destroy everything I've just typed!

 

[Ignatius21]

So, my basic question is this: for all the philosophical maneuvering, can we really separate the principle of SS from its practice? What real use is a kilogram if we can't weigh anything against it? And of course, as soon as a human is in the loop, the potential exists for mistakes, error, sin, and every manner of corruption in the process.

So, in the quotes I made in the first post...whether from the Lutheran confession, the church fathers, or the poster's own comments...we saw that personal pronouns were abundant. This tells us, then, that the application of SS is a process that must occur within a community. And that community must be agreed at least on the principle of SS itself...that much is obvious. But if that community is not likewise agreed on what counts as Scripture...canon, for instance...then no consensus can possibly be reached. If a community of builders all agree that they must adhere only to established international weights and measures...but can't agree whether to use a foot or a meter....or worse can't agree on exactly which kilogram really counts as a kilogram...they're dead in the proverbial water. And beyond this, if they all agree to use standards and to use the SAME standards...but apply them differently, or have processes that yield different results, once again they will reach different conclusions about just how high a wall is, or how much it weighs.

They may agree to disagree. They may split into separate groups and go their separate ways, each building its own house according to its own measures. They may become rivals and antagonistic toward each other. They may even hang each other by their tape measures in the name of God's True Kilogram. But even these responses...to stay together, to split, to go to war...are made within a community of people. A community that may split into other communities, to be sure, but still communities.

And a community itself has to be defined by something! There must be some objective way to determine which community actually possesses the true kilogram. Or, at least, some way other than to reference a kilogram that not everyone agrees is actually the right kilogram.

The principle of SS arose within the context of a dispute over, not only what source has the authority to norm all doctrine, but also what source has the authority to apply that norm. The two really are inseparable. I believe the Reformers were driven, by necessity, to come up with some objective standard against which all things...including the Pope...could be measured and corrected. But in rejecting the established system of applying the standards, they left something of a vacuum into which anyone who had a Bible could step. And this really is what happened. In some of Calvin's writings you see a staunch defense of the principle that everyone has a right to interpret the Scriptures. But you also see hints that, just because everyone can, not everyone should. What qualifies one to become an interpreter of Scripture such that others should follow his interpretation? Where is the panel of expert builders who can examine a new candidate and proclaim him to now be a builder, like them, who can erect the structures in which everyone else lives and eats and sleeps?

In short, they were caught up in the battle that still goes on today, between "Tradition" and "Scripture," the former being a collection of human practices and applications, and the latter being God's revealed truth.

Where it kind of falls apart, for me, is in the realization that...because this principle cannot even define itself without reference to "we," "us" and "ourselves," it can only exist within a community of people...and therefore a community's tradition...and therefore, the principle of SS itself is a TRADITION. A rose by any other name...

And yes, I KNOW that I am conflating the principle with its application. And I do it intentionally, because it is unavoidable. I think that if we really think this through, we will see that...because SS is itself a tradition...it necessarily contains within itself those traditions that enable it to exist, which are the very things the original post claimed SS was NOT.

For example, the canon. It's well and good to say "SS can work with any canon," but that's kind of useless if one person says the canon has 27 books, someone else says it has 15 and someone else uses a phone book. What is the canon? In an ultimate sense it is whatever God says it is. It exists independently of whether people accept it or don't...kind of like, Shakespeare is still the author of Hamlet whether or not any scholar thinks he is. But here in the plane of human existence, the canon of Scripture is...forgive me...a TRADITION that arose within a community of people, namely, the Christian Church.

My real point is this: if you read the quotes of the church fathers I referenced....and many others like them...you will see an unshakable faith in the Scriptures as the infallible rule of truth and the norm by which all doctrinal disputes are to be settled. But you also see in their other writings...and often in the very same writings...an unshakable confidence that the Orthodox/Catholic Church to which they belonged...and which could trace its origins to the apostles via successions of presbyters/bishops...was THE community WITHIN WHICH the principle could actually be applied. Vincent of Lerins spoke of the "rule of faith" that essentially functioned as a key that would unlock the true meaning of the Scriptures. Other fathers said that "Tradition is Scripture rightly interpreted." Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists and Baptists may all agree with those statements...but, using the same criteria by which those fathers identified their church, none of those communities can call itself "the Church" in quite the same way. Thus, the "we" in which the principle is applied becomes suspect and cannot be confirmed to be true.

The original post said that if "Bob the Builder" is his own standard of truth, then we're lost in circularity. The same applies to a group that says "we are the church because we interpret Scripture correctly." Really? So long as you accept their definition of SS, their canon of Scripture, and their hermeneutic (again, in the real world, principle and practice are unavoidably conflated) then sure enough, you can validate their claim. In their very attempt to avoid circularity through SS, they have simply fallen into a different circle.

The early church saw no conflict between Scripture and Tradition. Scripture was given by God to the Church, through the Church, to be interpreted and applied and safeguarded by and within the Church. The Church is authenticated by Scripture...and in a human sense Scripture is validated by the Church. All of it goes together in a sort of synergy (and if there's one word the Orthodox get giddy about, it's synergy). In a matter conceptually similar to Christ's two natures...perfectly united but without mixture, confusion or separation...Scripture and Tradition are part of a package. Ditto for faith and works, grace and sacraments, Christ and the Church. But that of course takes us far afield.

Anyway, I'm kind of rambling at this point and should probably stop. I very much appreciate the definition given of SS...what it is, and what it isn't. Any arguments directed against what it isn't aren't worth the words they're made of. I guess you could say though, my conclusion is that ultimately, when the rubber hits the road and we have to move on and move out, Sola Scriptura becomes the very things that it "isn't." It is no less circular than any Catholic or Orthodox position, and in fact is even more so because one of the two means of identifying which community has the "right" to interpret and apply Scripture...namely apostolic succession...is not only missing but (in 99% of cases) is outright rejected.

I will end with a statement of St. Vincent of Lerins...in which he, too, conflates the principle with the practice for the very reasons (I believe) I have:

But here someone perhaps will ask, ‘Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation?’ For this reason: Because of the depth of Holy Scripture, everyone does not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one manner, and one in another, so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters [...] Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of the great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the Prophets and Apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

I offer everything here in spirit of respect and charity and if I've misunderstood or misstated anything, I welcome correction.

God bless,
Bill

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This thread is a spin-off from a discussion that started some time ago, and eventually led to a very focused discussion with a Lutheran who proposed a very precise definition of what sola scriptura (hereafter, SS) is, and what it is not. I will attempt to do my best to interact with it. He mentioned in a past thread that he had converted from Roman Catholicism to Lutheranism...from not-SS to SS. I, myself, recently converted from Presbyterianism to Orthodoxy...from SS to not-SS. So perhaps we passed each other on the way

The definition of what SS is and is not, together with examples, are here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/.

I would encourage everyone who responds to this thread: please do not respond unless you have read this proposed definition in its entirety. Thoughtful posts require thoughtful ...and respectful...responses.

So............................

The proposed definition above begins by quoting a standard and historic Lutheran confession:



Emphasis, mine.

Before I go further, I will state a few questions:

1. According to what sole norm, is this definition the "official, historic definition?"
2. To whom do the terms "we," "ourselves" and "among us" refer, and
3. Do those terms not immediately imply that this "rule" applies only within a given community of people who mutually subscribe to it?

1. It is the definition of a PRACTICE. If you were to state that it is the practice of the Greek Orthodox Church to limit the office of bishops to unmarried men, then you might point to some official denominational document that so states.

2. The "we" and "ourselves" and "among us" refer to Lutherans. The Book of Concord consists of two sections: the first is Tradition and includes the three Ecumenical Creeds. The second contains the LUTHERAN Confessions, what Lutherans define as Lutheran teachings (not in any all-inclusive sense; they were drafted entirely vis-a-vis Catholicism and often at the request of Catholicism). Accountability, of course, was a huge part of the "dispute" and Sola Scriptura flows out of that. Even then, the practice was not well understood by Catholics (accountability is a very foreign concept there) and so it is defined - twice - in the Confessions. They define what we Lutherans mean by it. BTW, I have expressed this definition for about 6 years here at CF. I have yet to have a single Protestant disagree with it. Indeed, two Reformed posters here have used it - verbatim - and so it is not exclusive to Lutheranism.

3. I've read your third sentence several times but can't make sense of it; sorry. Could you re-phrase? IF you mean does is THIS definition mandatory among non-Lutherans, the obvious answer is "no." Does your denomination's practice of not having married bishops apply to the United Methodist Church? Does such mean that it's not the practice in your denomination or that ergo it is an unsound practice?

For the time being, I will say that I do not think that...as worded...the Orthodox would object. After all, statements rather similar to these can be found among some church fathers, such as:

We will note that these quotes, like the Lutheran formulation quoted above, make frequent reference to "we," "us," "ourselves" and the like.

As I've stated, I don't know what is the response to the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule in ANY EO or OO denomination. All I know is Orthodox posters here at CF and elsewhere typically just parrot whatever the Catholic posters say (as seems extremely typical in all issues) and have characterized embracing Scripture as "the anti-Christ" and "the mother of all heresies" and worse. I've never taken that to be the position of any EO or OO denomination, however - simply those Orthodox members eager to ride on the tails of Catholics here.

At this point I will say that his definition of what SS is not, immediately disarms a vast majority of arguments supposedly refuting SS...things like "John's gospel says that Jesus said and did other stuff...that isn't in the Bible...so SS must be false." Please...the Reformers were not simpletons.

I don't disagree.

Lastly it gives examples, such as two men who wish to determine the height of a wall they've just built. If the standard is one man who gets to say whether it is, or isn't, 8 feet high, then the definition of "foot" is irrelevant. But if the standard exists outside of any particular individual, then any and all builders are accountable to that one standard.

As such I believe SS attempts to do the same thing...and that, largely in reaction against the RCC, is to locate a transcendent and infallible norm of truth that is utterly above, beyond and outside of any human institution...one that in no way derives its authenticity or authority from man, but only from God.

Okay.


In the section "why some reject this practice," it is noted that the "bone of contention" is not Scripture, it's accountability.

So, this definition makes a very nuanced distinction...SS is a practice, not a doctrine as such. SS "works" with any canon, any hermeneutic, what have you...and so long as those parameters are rightly discerned and applied (I would reason) everything operates according to God's own truth. Why Scripture? Well, because it is the one thing that all Christians, everywhere, at all times have agreed is THE written and unchangeable record of God's revelation. It is, we might say, THE divinely ordained kilogram against which all other weights are to be compared, measured, found lacking and corrected.

Who could argue with such a thing?

There are dozens and dozens of threads about Sola Scriptura at CF. Those most loudly rebuking it are Catholics - and Orthodox parroting what the Catholics post.

But in a larger forum (one that doesn't limit discussion to those embracing the Creed), they are joined by the LDS. Those are the 3 primary voices that passionately and foundationally reject this practice: Members of the RCC, EOC and LDS. As I note in the section, "why some reject this practice", the reasons rarely have anything to do with Scripture but rather with accountability - the concept that a dogma COULD (even if theoretically) be false if such is taught by one's own denomination. When Catholics condemn Sola Scriptura (and Orthodox parrot whatever they say), they respond NOT with comments about Scripture but with comments about the infallible, unaccountable, unmitigated, "authority" of the RCC denomination. One might see the Catholic Catechism #87.

When I was Catholic, in this context, one of my Catholic teachers said, "Josiah - would you ask if GOD is correct? Then why do you ask if The Catholic Church is correct? Don't you know, Jesus said to The Catholic Church, 'whoever hears you hears me?'" And in "The Handbook of the Catholic Faith," (used in RCIA classes), it says, "When a Catholic is asked for the basis of the [Catholic] Church's teachings, the correct response is: From the infallible [and thus UNACCOUNTABLE] Authority. Such consists of the Bishop of Rome and those bishops in communion with them. Jesus promised the [Catholic] Church, "whoever hears you hears me." Believing that promise, the Catholic is freed from the typically Protestant issue of "is it true" and instead rests in quiet confidence that what the [Catholic] Church says is what Jesus says." (page 151). Read that over a few times... THERE is the objection to the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of disputed Christian dogmas among us. And Catholics will respond with the unmitigated, unaccountable, unquestionable POWER that belongs to the Pope and those bishops "in communion with him." Protestants are trying to get to the issue of truth, Catholics are in "quiet docility" to the unquestionable and unaccountable power of their denomination. MY experience for the past 6 years or so is that Orthodox posters poke into the discussion regularly to parrot whatever the Catholics say - often adding condemnation to theirs with things such as "it's the anti-Christ!" "It's the most heretical dogma ever taught in the history of Christianity!" and so forth. The Orthodox all seem to agree with the RCC on this (which HAS surprised me - for some years now - since they don't do the very thing the Catholics insist must be done). As I noted elsewhere, WHY the Orthodox universally seem to do this is a puzzle to me but one I've LONG ago given up trying to understand. What is, is.

My objection, then, is not so much with the idea that we should be normed by God's truth and God's truth alone. My objection is that, by formulating such a philosophically precise and nuanced definition, we have actually produced something that is unworkable in any kind of practice.

In any definitive and final way, I don't disagree. I can think of FEW practices in the hands of sinful men that IS perfect in function.

We have the Rule of Law in the USA. Does it mean that all crime ends, all dispute terminates, and love and morality prevail? Not that I've noticed. Is the answer then to declare that each is unaccountable, with unmitigated POWER? I think not....

Norming actually involves THREE parts (as I've very often mentioned):

1. A mutual embrace of accountability. "I COULD be wrong." THIS is where the actual dispute lies in this topic. And it ain't easy! Pride exists among Protestants as much as it does Catholics. We are often talking about articles of FAITH that are embraced foundationally and passionately. While I theoretically agree that Truth matters more than self - in reality, it's not so easy to separate. KNOWING we are working counter to our fallen nature, sensitive to avoiding skepticism and uberexamination (Lutherans in particular are ubersensitive to not "throwing the baby out with the bathwater," it makes this issue all the more important. As you know, it's actually very central to the Reformation. Luther was NOT excommunicated because he questioned purgatory or Transubstantiation AS DOGMAS, or even for his views of justification (the drummed up charge) - as the "Joint declaration on Justification" makes so clear - the issue was simple: Luther regarded the dogmas and practices of the RCC as POTENTIALLY errant, he was not doing as is MANDATED: to be in quiet, "docilic" submission to the Pope in Rome. THAT could not be tolerated. That Luther died of natural causes is the only surprise..... Again, my Catholic teacher: "Josiah - would you question if God is correct? Then why ask if The Catholic Church is correct?" In US society, ALL citizens are regarded as accountable and POTENTIALLY errant - even the president. It makes no sense to have laws if such is not the case.


2. A commonly embraced Rule/Canon/Norma normans. And the more objective, the more knowable and unalterable by all, the more ecumenically and historically embraced as reliable for this purpose - the better. Protestants often think God's Scripture best qualifies. I work with scientific research. We do not regard each researcher as "infallible/unaccountable" and we don't accept if such says, "I say that when I alone say something, it is exempt from examination and the issue of whether it is correct." We regard them as accountable (in fact, the main point in publishing is to hold up your work to examination, it is an embrace of accountability). We have a norma normans. Typically,that's math and repeatable, observable laborative experimentation. Not particular good norma normans - but it's the best we've got and such has one enormous advantage - we all accept it for this purpose and it's OUTSIDE any of us. Theology has a huge advantage over science in part because it has a far, far, far better rule/canon. If I'm driving down the road, I need something to determine what side of the center line I'm going to drive on. If two cars are going in opposite directions, it's pretty helpful to both be working from the same law - knowable, objective, outside self.


3. Arbitration. There needs to be some MUTUALLY agreeable means to arbitrate the issue: Does the position "measure up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the canon)? Yup, this is often the sticky point IF (big word there) IF we get this far. If you look at Protestantism, you get a confirmation of this difficulty - we (at least sometimes) have the first two, but we don't have the third. NO ONE DOES. Of the 50,000 + denominations that the Catholics around here insist exist, NONE - not a single one - has any arbitrative process BEYOND SELF. To any extent, up to around the year 800, we have SOMETHING (however limited) in place - the Ecumenical Councils. Not infallible, but extremely helpful (and Lutherans hold them in great esteem). But, from my perspective, the individualism, institutionalism, and (above all) EGOISM made them impossible. How do you deal with those at the "table" shouting, "I claim I can't be wrong - so I can't, so there!" "I don't need no rule/canon cuz I don't need no norming!" "I don't need no arbitration cuz I'm right!" We do seem stuck. And it's not just in Catholicism. Lutherans lament the lack of adequate ECUMENICAL arbitration. But we focused on the first (and hardest) step, embrace the second step - and tend to think the third might come if the first two happen. PERSONALLY, I'm extremely pessimistic. Christianity became a MESS - centuries, many centuries - before Luther was born. We have a lot of work to do. And it begins with humility. And it begins with me.

IF you're point is: "There seems to be no effective means of all agreeing," then I couldn't agree with you more. But I disagree that ergo, each just retreats into "Just docilically submit to ME, ignore that issue of truth, and then we'll all be one."



Again, the RCC approaches all this in terms of POWER, CONTROL, LORDSHIP, SUBMISSION (all rather Roman, isn't it?). As the Handbook says, "Catholics are freed from the typically Protestant issue of is it true." Protestants approach doctrine in terms of accountability and true - Lutherans being very ginger, very cautious there. We do talk past each other. We are quite "stuck." I don't deny that for a minute.


But THIS topic is singular: It concerns the SECOND point and it ALONE. I agree - accountability and arbitration are both ALSO involved, but since Sola Scriptura addresses neither, discussions about such are about neither. IF you want to talk about accountability (and Catholics AVOID this at all costs!) or if you want to talk about arbitration (and ditto!), I'd welcome that. I don't know what the EO and OO Positions are on either (and again - I've given up thinking I can learn that - Orthodox seem entirely absorbed by definding Catholicism and joining with them in condemning everything associated with Protestantism), but if you want to discuss them in some forum where I can freely post, I'd welcome that. From my FEW discussions with Orthodox, I honestly think we might be MUCH closer to each other than either of us is to Catholicism (although I'm 100% confident NO Orthodox would EVER state that, even if they regarded it as likely - there's a dynamic here I simply don't understand and being no "Dr. Phil" I'm not going to try. But again, take either of those to some open forum where I can freely post, and I'll gladly join in. I've ALREADY likely earned a Warning from Staff from what I've posted in this thread - breaking two rules in one post. I admit it. If no one reports me, I'll likely get away with it. We can't derail threads (this one is about Sola Scriptura, NOT accountability OR arbitration) and I'm not abiding by Congregation Forum rules - even in debate subforums. I know that. Take these other issues to other threads in other forums or PLEASE get back to the issue - otherwise, I need to exit.







.

 

[Ignatius21]

Josiah, I appreciate your response. And I sympathize with your plight of trying to figure out just what it is the Orthodox believe about...well, just about anything I came from a strictly Westminster Confession-based Presbyterian background. Everything believed by a Presbyterian denomination is pretty much spelled out in precise language somewhere, in an easily referenced and indexed confession or catechism. By contrast, Orthodoxy appeared to me as a trainwreck.

I have found Orthodox to sometimes borrow ("parrot" as you say) Catholic arguments against Protestants. I have also seen Orthodox "parrot" Protestant arguments back against Catholics. When trying to argue against sola scriptura one can borrow from the Catholic shelf, and when arguing against the Papacy one can borrow from the Protestant shelf. The problem is, neither really accommodates Orthodoxy.

Internet forums probably aren't the best place to find solid answers to deep questions. You mentioned in a different thread that you've talked to Orthodox priests before and found their responses to be very different from what you encounter on message boards. Please, try to find more priests

As you stated several times in several posts, here and elsewhere, (a) you do not understand the EO approach to "norming" and (b) you have tried for years and have found little to differentiate it from Catholicism. And accordingly, you devoted most of your space above to arguing against the RCC, or at least using that as a "foil" against which to define SS. And that makes perfect sense, given that SS was developed and adopted by the Reformers in opposition to the RCC. I completely understand your 3-point list above, wherein the establishment of an agreed upon "norm" is distinct from either the application of that norm, or the arbitration required to arrive at the solution. I'm not sure whether I made my own point clear initially...namely that, while such a nuanced approach makes for good theory, in the real world in which we must live as Christians, it all comes together as a package. In every post you've made here (including the prior debate thread) you have called the focus back to the extremely narrow question of "what is the norm?"

In the quotes from church fathers that I offered (and there are more), it seems clear that if you could pin them down on such a nuanced question as "what is the norm," then "the Holy Scriptures" may well have been their answer. Really, what that says is "God's revealed truth" is the norm, where here on earth we equate "God's revealed truth" with "written Scripture." But, we must remember that "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds." (Heb. 1:1-2). God's Word is not a static book, but the incarnate Logos, a divine-human person who lived and ate and healed and died as one of us...and rose again as one of us (as we all shall one day rise), and now sits at the "right hand" of God the Father. So God's revelation to us is not only a record of verbal propositions...God's revelation is Christ.

Really, the norm that norms all other norms is Christ Jesus himself.

Now...how is he present among us in his church? He is the head, and the Church is his body. His body is the whole people of God...some bishops, some monks, most "lay" Christians...the old and young, men and women, infants and even those who are dead in the body but alive in Christ as they await the resurrection of the Body. The Church is joined to...and mystically united to...Christ, such that Christ is not absent but truly present here, now, among us...and within us.

And as such, the Orthodox believe that it was God working in and through the Church (clergy, laity, the whole shebang) to inspire men to write the Scriptures...to inspire men to recognize and receive the Scriptures...to "hear the voice of their shepherd" as Christ said they would. God worked through the Church at the ecumenical councils to resolve the disputes that were tearing it apart. Those who formulated the creeds and rejected the heresies exegeted Scripture, expounded on Scripture, and were quite adamantly not trying to go beyond it (it stands in history that certain terms, like trinity and homoousious were met with resistance and suspicion precisely because they were not Biblical words. The councils were not seen as some separate norm, or an extra norm, or something that filled in what was lacking in Scripture...rather they were seen as the right interpretation of Scripture. Interpretation based on centuries of lived experiences of worship within the Body of Christ, united around bishops in the celebration of the eucharistic mystery in which Christ, himself, was really and truly present in their midst.

So if you ask the Orthodox to respond to Sola Scriptura, I think they have a particularly difficult time simply because they never had to formulate such a nuanced doctrine. As you said about something else, "whatever is, is" and such was the case of how Scripture was used in the life and worship and doctrine of the Church. It simply was. And to make a nuanced category of "scripture alone" is somewhat meaningless in an Orthodox context, because Scripture never was and never is and never can be alone. The Word of God became incarnate...you cannot have the Word without the Body...if the "Word" is the Bible, the "Body" is the Church. So the "Church alone" includes Scripture and "Scripture alone" includes the Church. I think this is why drawing a narrow line with "praxis" on one side and "arbitration and application" on the other just doesn't have a parallel here.

I'm not sure I see the value of defining something so precisely and technically that it becomes unusable...maybe I misunderstand, but it seems that's what you're doing. I certainly will not argue that the "norm" by which doctrine is to be measured and reformed and corrected within the Church is anything other than Scripture rightly interpreted.

Now, to branch out just a tad and mention the issue of accountability, in Orthodoxy accountability is not localized in one man, one council, one see, one place or any such thing. (In practice of course, certain sees, bishops, monks, etc. carried more weight and were much more influential...sometimes including emperors... ). But I once heard that you can visualize this as sort of a series of concentric circles...maybe a spiral since it's all connected. At the center you have Christ as the norm of the Church because he is its head, its shepherd, its true priest and true bishop. His revelation to us is primarily in the Scriptures...they are the infallible norm of doctrine and life. No ecumenical council could assemble and decide to add a few more chapters to Matthew, or remove a few from Romans. An ecumenical council could meet to evaluate doctrines and disputes, resolving them through the interpretation of Scripture according to the lived, collective experience and Tradition of the Church, and produce a Creed...like that at Nicea I for instance. A later council could assemble and modify that creed, or add clarification to it...as happened at Constantinople when the clause was added about the divinity (and single procession! ) of the Holy Spirit. A local council (in, say, Toledo, Spain...) cannot change or amend or alter the creeds or canons of ecumenical councils. So you do see a sort of "spiral" of authority out from the center.

So in a sense, an ecumenical creed is not at the same level as Scripture...although, at the same time and in another sense, it is. The Orthodox/Catholic Church believed itself to be the true Church, and its councils to be guided into truth by the same Holy Spirit who guided the Church to receive the Scriptures...which is the same Holy Spirit who inspired men to write the Scriptures...which is the same Holy Spirit who descended at Pentecost...who also inspired the Prophets...who hovered over the face of the deep when God the Father created all things through God the Son...basically, that first verse of the Epistle to the Hebrews, right?

Anyway, I'm not sure if you will receive this response as helpful or think I'm dodging the "norming" issue again. I don't intend to. I'm positing that drawing a sharp distinction between the "norm" and the "application and arbitration of the norm" becomes a sleight-of-hand that gets us nowhere in practice...which of course, is what praxis means.

I hope we can continue this discussion. I won't vote you off the island for speaking your mind and I won't parrot back any Catholic arguments to you

If anything, I'm less Roman Catholic now than I was as a Protestant!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Joshua G.]

I have found Orthodox to sometimes borrow ("parrot" as you say) Catholic arguments against Protestants. I have also seen Orthodox "parrot" Protestant arguments back against Catholics. When trying to argue against sola scriptura one can borrow from the Catholic shelf, and when arguing against the Papacy one can borrow from the Protestant shelf. The problem is, neither really accommodates Orthodoxy.

Well said

CJ: Look, I know you have had bad run ins with the majority of Orthodox here who use Catholics arguments rather thoughtlessly and I can understand your frustration.

Well, look. You have at least two Orthodox here who are saying what Ignatius so aptly put above and even saying "hey, there is a lot of stuff you say here that really isn't that unOrthodox, at least on surface if not deeper"

So, how about you forget about what TAW member X Y or Z "parroted" and let this conversation go both ways. Yes, this is about understanding SS, but if we enter this dialog in a Spirit of willingness to understand eachOTHER (not just us you).

That's what I am looking forward to in this thread.

 

[Philothei]

As I've stated, I don't know what is the response to the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule in ANY EO or OO denomination. All I know is Orthodox posters here at CF and elsewhere typically just parrot whatever the Catholic posters say (as seems extremely typical in all issues) and have characterized embracing Scripture as "the anti-Christ" and "the mother of all heresies" and worse. I've never taken that to be the position of any EO or OO denomination, however - simply those Orthodox members eager to ride on the tails of Catholics here.

Josiah...Think! 1,000 years of common tradition! Why would we feel the same about scripture and what defines Tradition? Where exactly do we 'overlap" please tell! What exactly is the 'parroting" part? The praxis of SS (or norm) has a tradition too. For 500 years now all SS are belong to certain denominations of the Protestant churches. Are we to think you are parroting then? And if not how is it any different?

Truths and dogma that is common to RC and EO is parroting? let's get serious here shall we?

 

[Joshua G.]

Ignatius,

Great stuff. I especially like how you point out something that we in TAW need to be more mindful of. THat SS is a western issue. That doesn't mean it's not relevant to us because it is because a lot of us live in the West and in a SS world. But we need to be careful that we respond in an Orthodox way rahter than in a Catholic way just as we need to be sure that we respond to Papal Primacy (as you pointed out) in an Orthodox way rather than a Protestant way.

CJ, your posts actually opened my eyes to this fact because when I read your careful outline of SS (what it is and what it is not) I realized that most of it seemed to respond to issues that don't even relate well to anything I know from Orthodoxy.

It's as if I thought I were reading a break up letter from my girlfriend and then realized that a lot of the complaints she had or reasons she had as to why we differed often had nothing to do with my personality... only to realize that I was reading someone else's letter. lol

BUt I think many of us Orthodox don't realize this and we just feel offended and try to take on every point when the letter has very little relevance to us.

So, I am enjoying reading your conversation here with Ignatius because he does a great job at explaining and in this way, you cna understand better our position and see where we truly and MEANINGFULLY contradict each other and thereby redexplain SS in a way that is relevant to our experience.

 

[Joshua G.]

Josiah...Think! 1,000 years of common tradition! Why would we feel the same about scripture and what defines Tradition? Where exactly do we 'overlap" please tell! What exactly is the 'parroting" part? The praxis of SS (or norm) has a tradition too. For 500 years now all SS are belong to certain denominations of the Protestant churches. Are we to think you are parroting then? And if not how is it any different?

Truths and dogma that is common to RC and EO is parroting? let's get serious here shall we?

Philothei,

Regardless of what you think of Josiah's thoughts, at least for right now, does it make sense that we should respond to SS int he same way as Catholics when SS ONLY sprouted in the Catholic west at LEAST 500 years after we (Orthodox and Catholics) already didn't understand eachother well.

Think of it this way, here we aren't talking about SS as much as we are talking about that ultimate norm. In the scholastic west (to oversimplify it, but I still think it's useful) that one black and white norm was sought after. Catholics meticulously developed what would come to be known as Papal Supremacy and Infallibility since before the official schism. Protestants carried on this novel notion in the creation of SS. But the East (and we would argue, the early Church) has never seeked after such a black and white sole norm and Ignatius' posts do a fantastic job at showing this.

In other words, there are two main issues here. 1) SS did not form in opposition to us so often times we are debating with stuff that isn't even necessarily contradicting our beliefs (even if the wording might seem foreign to us) 2) we can no more side with Protestants on this issue as we can with Catholics because they both posit something we don't live: that there is a black and white sole norm (Pope or Scriptures).

If we enter the debate it needs to be redefined completely and to do that a lot of tedious dialog needs to happen to sort out what issues there are between us (and what issues there AREN'T) and how they are approached. This is a revelation that has hit me as of... two days ago thanks in part to our guest Josiah.

BUt I have always said this about the debate regarding PI and PS. We so often "parrot" what the protestants say needlessly entering into the silly debate about what Christ meant about Peter and such. We have let the West (Catholics and Protestants) define the debate for us and we have to regain what the REAL debate was between East and West (well before Protestants we even a glimmer in History's eye) which had little or nothing (substantially) to do with Peter.

To complicate matters here, we don't have any earlier preschism debate to return to because the SS debate started outside of our experience and then, through immigration and such we found ourselves suddenly in the middle of a debate we had never had anything really to do with many centuries after it had begun and rooted itself in the western minset. So, unlike Universal Jurisdiction and PI, we have to create a unique dialog that never existed before.

So, this thread is a fantastic opportunity to help us all understand what SS is (or at least can be) and for Josiah to understand how we understand sole norm in Orthodoxy.

Josh

 

[Philothei]

1. the accusation was made that we parrot...while in reality it is not so.

2. truth is truth no matter what 'side' one is taking

3 SS is just another "way" to establish a "norm" that does not exist in the Church period.

I will bow out now have y'all discuss this.
Have a good night

 

[Ignatius21]

Philothie

I think I see where you're coming from...but to say that the church never searched for a "norm" or that it didn't exist, seems a little...well, wrong to me. In the debates against heretics (outside the church) the "norm" was most definitely Scripture...but Scripture interpreted within and by the true Church, which came increasingly to be defined as that body of Orthodox believers who celebrated a valid Eucharist with their bishop (as Ignatius of Antioch said) and those bishops were in lines of apostolic succession (as Irenaeus, then Cyprian, Tertullian and others hammered away on). Within the church itself (i.e. Arius) apostolic succession was a given, but the "norm" still was Scripture...albeit, interpreted according to the "Tradition" or "rule of faith" (regula fidei). And of course they spent centuries finalizing the NT canon realizing that they needed a standard "plumb line" of Scriptures for the Church.

Josh,
Ditto to pretty much all you said. I echo your plea to toss aside the shallow experiences of the past and let this debate be what it is

California Josiah…
I’ve been thinking about your “norm” issue a lot since yesterday and I’m going to try later to post some new thoughts on that.

 

[Philothei]

Philothie

I think I see where you're coming from...but to say that the church never searched for a "norm" or that it didn't exist, seems a little...well, wrong to me. In the debates against heretics (outside the church) the "norm" was most definitely Scripture...but Scripture interpreted within and by the true Church, which came increasingly to be defined as that body of Orthodox believers who celebrated a valid Eucharist with their bishop (as Ignatius of Antioch said) and those bishops were in lines of apostolic succession (as Irenaeus, then Cyprian, Tertullian and others hammered away on). Within the church itself (i.e. Arius) apostolic succession was a given, but the "norm" still was Scripture...albeit, interpreted according to the "Tradition" or "rule of faith" (regula fidei). And of course they spent centuries finalizing the NT canon realizing that they needed a standard "plumb line" of Scriptures for the Church.

Josh,
Ditto to pretty much all you said. I echo your plea to toss aside the shallow experiences of the past and let this debate be what it is

California Josiah…
I’ve been thinking about your “norm” issue a lot since yesterday and I’m going to try later to post some new thoughts on that.

ok sure I will try to explain what I see from a craddle EO coming from another country what SS means to me vis-a-vis what I experienced all these years 20 years in the old country (Greece) and 20 (over) years in the USA.

First of all it is Philothei (not to be a stickler as I mess us names too...)

I do not see a "norm" in the church in general but the Holy Spirit being the norm IMHO. The fathers are all talking about the prophets, Christ and the Apostles. Yes they quote many things from the Bible. They do want to be in the "omothimathon" same mind of the Apostles in interpreting things, teaching things, doing theology and "defend " the faith. The use the Bible as the sacred word of God I NEVER dispute that and NO one in his right mind can say this. BUT to say the norm is the Bible is absurd to me as indeed the LOGOS of God is Chist and the "measure" to doing theology is always "telling the truth" about God and Godly things based on the Apostolic praxis and ethos with the .... help and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That is what I believe in a nutshell and learned both here(USA) at the Seminary I attended and through my various interaction and personal experience.

i would hardly call this tradition "imbeded" to the scripture. When st. Paul talks about ways to evangelize it is indeed the Holy Spirit that helps along men and women to go "therefore and make disciples"! In the west the raise of scholarticism indeed in the RC gave way to the emphasis on the "written logos" and thus Scripture. So IMHO always the emphasis in the Bible is something that came as a reaction to the western world a norm that already pre-existed after the schism with the raise of scholasticism and clerisism. Why would we think that knowing the Bbile of having read the Bible suddenly becomes a means for extra "inspiration" or "interpetation' of the reality of God or things about God. After all God is a mystery shall we also say that the ones who cannot read it they are missing part of their "full comprehension" of who God is?

That is where I come from and I still have way to go for sure as no one is infallable and only the one Lord of lights

blessing,
Philothei

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah, I appreciate your response.

As you stated several times in several posts, here and elsewhere, (a) you do not understand the EO approach to "norming" and (b) you have tried for years and have found little to differentiate it from Catholicism. And accordingly, you devoted most of your space above to arguing against the RCC, or at least using that as a "foil" against which to define SS. And that makes perfect sense, given that SS was developed and adopted by the Reformers in opposition to the RCC. I completely understand your 3-point list above, wherein the establishment of an agreed upon "norm" is distinct from either the application of that norm, or the arbitration required to arrive at the solution.

... okay

I'm not sure whether I made my own point clear initially...namely that, while such a nuanced approach makes for good theory, in the real world in which we must live as Christians, it all comes together as a package. In every post you've made here (including the prior debate thread) you have called the focus back to the extremely narrow question of "what is the norm?"

1. As I've said repeatedly, norming involves several things. But this thread is not about norming, it's about the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in such.

2. It is a rule violation to deviate from the topic of the thread.

3. I NEVER said that this practice (OR ANY PRACTICE in the hands of sinful men) is PERFECT and INCAPABLE of error or absolutely free from ANY possibility of fault or failure. I have - over and over and over - freely admitted (including in this Orthodox forum) that this practice CAN result in a wrong conclusion. However, in MY opinion, after some time studying the RCC, LDS and a host of what would typically be called "cults" (ALL passionately opposed to the Rule of Scripture), has convinced me that self designating self as exempt from the issue of truth and substituting the issue of unmitigated POWER, so that what is necessary is docilic submission to self in whatever self says is an even more flawed practice. Also that self declaring that the views of self (Tradition of self, interpretations by self) are the rule for the veiws of self is an even more flawed (and worthless) practice. Perhaps you disagree.

In the quotes from church fathers that I offered (and there are more), it seems clear that if you could pin them down on such a nuanced question as "what is the norm," then "the Holy Scriptures" may well have been their answer.

Perhaps....

I don't know. I don't know if any can know. I don't know what significance that has.

In my Catholic days, I was often AMAZED by the ability of Catholic apologists to find some snippet (I think those medival monks had nothing else to do, wink wink), and snip it, crop it, translate it, and (here's the real issue) interpret it so as to seem to suggest some "agreement" - however pressed (the point of such never expressed). Don't misunderstand me, I have a PROFOUND respect for those "fathers" - I think they were MIGHTILY used by God to work through a mine field of dangerous ideas floating around, I think ALL Christians owe them a profound and deep note of gratitude. (Similiar dittos to the Ecumenical Councils). But this thing is TRYING to show that it COULD be that someone once perhaps said something that MIGHT be interpreted to mean some teaching 1000 years later is correct - well, it often seems very pressed to me. And I'm not sure it's wise to employ them to issues they likely never heard of. BTW, Lutherans do this, too. Snippets can be found to reject Transubstantiation, infallibility of the papacy, purgatory, there are even snippets Lutherans use to support Sola Scriptura - and pretty much all the things Lutherans disagree with the RCC concerning. Catholics don't care, they matter not, the "Fathers" are ONLY meaningful when they can be shown to agree with current RCC teachings and practices, as that Catholic thinks is taught and done in the RCC. Frankly (to be blunt), I think the way these blessed saints are treated at least boarders on disrespectful, I KNOW I would not appreciate having my writings so snipped, cropped, and "interpreted" in such a way.

Yes, I read what you presented. Yes - Given what was presented, it might be that some may have been at least similar to the Lutheran position.

God's Word is not a static book, but the incarnate Logos,

While I don't wholly disagree, you remind me of an extremely liberal, "reconstructionist" Supreme Court Judge who argues that the Constitution and the Law are "living, breathing entities." Which is "code" for "we can ignore what's written - and "see" the right to an abortion, gay marriage, etc.

I agree that Scripture is not to be seen as a dead document. On the other hand, AS A RULE/CANON/NORMA NORMAN, it is fairly worthless if it's not objective, knowable, unchangable. We've then simply tossed it out and replaced it with 2 billion "views" as the norm (and you can be sure IN EVERY CASE, the view of self will agree with the view of self). "I'll accept not the words of Scripture but what I myself say it MEANS as the rule for my own views" is not much help ("I" here can mean any person, congregation, denomination - including yours and mine).

Let me try it this way. I work in the area of scientific research. Let's say (this would be a best-case situation, lol) that a researcher has some up with extremely solid data from experimentation that others have duplicated with the same results: we all agree it's solid. That scientist may (and you can bet your dime, will) say that "my interpretation of this is....." "What this means is....." IF we permit him to use his OWN interpretation/application of the data as the rule/canon for the evaluation of the same, we've simply created a self-authenticating circle - irrelevant to truth. In the same way, if you say, "The Rule is not Scripture but what I say is the correct MEANING of Scripture," all you have done is substitute your own views for Scripture - and changed the rule from Scripture to what you see in the mirror. Placing the two TOGETHER accomplishes exactly the same thing, for your VIEW is equal, inseparable and united with Scripture as ONE rule/canon - and thus Scripture MUST agree with your view (even if only by implication).


I think that often where the "issue" comes is in practical issues. Note that the Rule of Scripture is used in DOCTRINE, especially dogma.

Really, the norm that norms all other norms is Christ Jesus himself.

Again, theoretically, I don't disagree. But such is wholly worthless AS A CANON in norming (the sole issue before us); it's worthless as theologians gather around the table to form a consensus on things such as OBOB or Purgatory. The same could be said in a court room as we try to determine correctness in a car accident; sure - Jesus IS the Truth, but does that help the jury decide who was at fault in the car accident? The context here is the evaluation of DOCTRINES - especially disputed ones among us. I'm SURE that ALL parties would believe (sincerely!) that Jesus is on their side. Not much help there....

And as such, the Orthodox believe that it was God working in and through the Church (clergy, laity, the whole shebang) to inspire men to write the Scriptures...to inspire men to recognize and receive the Scriptures...to "hear the voice of their shepherd" as Christ said they would. God worked through the Church at the ecumenical councils to resolve the disputes that were tearing it apart. Those who formulated the creeds and rejected the heresies exegeted Scripture, expounded on Scripture, and were quite adamantly not trying to go beyond it (it stands in history that certain terms, like trinity and homoousious were met with resistance and suspicion precisely because they were not Biblical words. The councils were not seen as some separate norm, or an extra norm, or something that filled in what was lacking in Scripture...rather they were seen as the right interpretation of Scripture. Interpretation based on centuries of lived experiences of worship within the Body of Christ, united around bishops in the celebration of the eucharistic mystery in which Christ, himself, was really and truly present in their midst.

I have a HUNCH (however vague and without confirmation) that the EO has a MUCH more Protestant view of the church than does the RCC (well, you can say that Protestants have a much more Orthodox view, if you like, lol). And your view of the Ecumenical Councils APPEARS to be far, far more like what I'm learning in Lutheranism than what I learned in Catholicism. BUT we are totally off topic. You are venturing into Arbitration. As I said before, IF we were able to talk about arbitration, I SUSPECT we'd find that the EO and classic Protestantism are not so far apart - and probably MUCH closer than either is to Catholicism. Maybe. But we can't discuss that here.

So if you ask the Orthodox to respond to Sola Scriptura, I think they have a particularly difficult time simply because they never had to formulate such a nuanced doctrine.

It's not a doctrine...

I find it.... impossible..... for ANY discipline or group to embrace accountability and not have a rule/canon/norma normans. I simply cannot comprehend an epistemology that has one without the other.

And to make a nuanced category of "scripture alone" is somewhat meaningless in an Orthodox context, because Scripture never was and never is and never can be alone.

Two things CAN be embraced as the rule/canon/norma normans. But in doing so, they MUST (by necessity) proclaim identically. Thus, in Catholicism, for example, there are 3 things embraced as such (they MUST be equal, inseparable and united or they can't all 3 be the rule/canon/norma normans). They are "the three-legged stool" and they are:

1. The "Tradition" of the RCC as the RCC currently defines, chooses and interprets so as to agree with the RCC, PLUS (equally and inseparably)
2. The "Scripture" "in the heart of the RCC" as the RCC currently defines, choose and interprets so as to agree with the RCC, PLUS (equally and inseparately)
3. The Magisterium of the RCC, as currently chosen and defined by the RCC.
These THREE form ONE rule/canon/norma normans. Now to be such, they MUST all be one teaching, one position. Thus, functionally, if the Magisterium of the RCC says something, it is a function of the one rule that the Bible does too - it MUST - even if such is purely by implication. If CAtholic Tradition says something, so does the Magisterium (even if it doesn't voice it yet) and Scripture (even if via invisible words - as a living, breathing word as you'd put it). Here's the point: When more than one thing is the rule, then one can simply pick from ANY of them and the rest MUST be in agreement (otherwise, you'd need to rank them - with only ONE as the norma normans, the others being supportive only). Friend, THIS IS EXACTLY how the LDS and every cult known to me works. By employing their OWN views (call it "Tradition" or "Magisterium" whatever you like) as the rule for the views of self. All it does is prove that self usually agrees with self. What we need is a rule OUTSIDE all parties, above them all. Knowable by all, unalterable by all. Self looking in the mirror at self usually only reveals self - it has nothing to do with truth.

I certainly will not argue that the "norm" by which doctrine is to be measured and reformed and corrected within the Church is anything other than Scripture rightly interpreted.

1. You'd need to define "church." Does that mean your denomination? The RCC? The ELCA?


2. "Rightly interpreted" means that what self WANTS it to say becomes the rule/norm/canon. We're right back to self looking in the mirror at self. The rule needs to be what God put there. Objective. Black and white. Knowable by all. Alterable by none. Now, IN THE ARBITRATION, interpretations will be an issue. Lutherans often fall back on Tradition there - but the Rule remains Scriptures, so that the Tradition is UNDER Scripture. But we're again in forbidden territory.

Now, to branch out just a tad and mention the issue of accountability, in Orthodoxy accountability is not localized in one man, one council, one see, one place or any such thing. (In practice of course, certain sees, bishops, monks, etc. carried more weight and were much more influential...sometimes including emperors... ). But I once heard that you can visualize this as sort of a series of concentric circles...maybe a spiral since it's all connected. At the center you have Christ as the norm of the Church because he is its head, its shepherd, its true priest and true bishop. His revelation to us is primarily in the Scriptures...they are the infallible norm of doctrine and life. No ecumenical council could assemble and decide to add a few more chapters to Matthew, or remove a few from Romans. An ecumenical council could meet to evaluate doctrines and disputes, resolving them through the interpretation of Scripture according to the lived, collective experience and Tradition of the Church, and produce a Creed...like that at Nicea I for instance. A later council could assemble and modify that creed, or add clarification to it...as happened at Constantinople when the clause was added about the divinity (and single procession! ) of the Holy Spirit. A local council (in, say, Toledo, Spain...) cannot change or amend or alter the creeds or canons of ecumenical councils. So you do see a sort of "spiral" of authority out from the center.

So in a sense, an ecumenical creed is not at the same level as Scripture...although, at the same time and in another sense, it is. The Orthodox/Catholic Church believed itself to be the true Church, and its councils to be guided into truth by the same Holy Spirit who guided the Church to receive the Scriptures...which is the same Holy Spirit who inspired men to write the Scriptures...which is the same Holy Spirit who descended at Pentecost...who also inspired the Prophets...who hovered over the face of the deep when God the Father created all things through God the Son...basically, that first verse of the Epistle to the Hebrews, right?

Anyway, I'm not sure if you will receive this response as helpful or think I'm dodging the "norming" issue again. I don't intend to. I'm positing that drawing a sharp distinction between the "norm" and the "application and arbitration of the norm" becomes a sleight-of-hand that gets us nowhere in practice...which of course, is what praxis means.

I hope we can continue this discussion. I won't vote you off the island for speaking your mind and I won't parrot back any Catholic arguments to you

If anything, I'm less Roman Catholic now than I was as a Protestant!

Blessings,
Bill

Thank you.


Ecumenical Councils were ancient attempts at arbitration. Another issue for another day and thread.... Lutherans lament the egoism, individualism, and institutionalism that for the past 1200 years (plus) have made it impossible to even HAVE an Ecumenical Council - much less accomplish anything in it. We need to address the issues of accountability and then of the rule/canon before we can get to that. I'm not holding my breath, lol.....


I've been to Toledo, Spain. When I was a kid growing up, my best friend (you know how that goes when you're a kid) was VERY Catholic and came from a rather important family in Spain (although he was born here, his part of the family fled Spain during the civil war there). After he graduated from high school, he moved to Spain to attend university and for better employment opportunities (such being more influence by family than here). Anyway, a few years ago, I spent pretty much the season of Christmas with him and his family, just outside Madrid. Mark took me all over the area, to lots of the things around there. In Toledo, we actually worshipped at the Cathedral - and it DID seem powerful that HERE were some very important and historic church councils....






.

 

[Joshua G.]

2. It is a rule violation to deviate from the topic of the thread.

That is not the spirit of the rule and that is merely to protect a person's thread from being hijacked. You know as certainly as I do that there is not one admin here who feels that these tangental questions (which do relate to the question at hand).

Since this is about understanding your particular explanation of the praxis of Sola Scriptura which uses the term "norm" and related terms repeatedly.

Therefore, to understand we do need to understand what "norm" means to you and if you purport that having a norm is necessary then we need to understand this.

Are you not at all interested in what we believe? You have two people who are Orthodox ready and willing to discuss this with you. IN doing that we can all better understand each other and enter into a more fruitful conversation that will help us understand you better.

Josh

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

).

Since this is about understanding your particular explanation of the praxis of Sola Scriptura which uses the term "norm" and related terms repeatedly.

Therefore, to understand we do need to understand what "norm" means to you and if you purport that having a norm is necessary then we need to understand this.

This is explained at length here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/
If you have any questions about that, please feel free to ask. Thanks!

You have two people who are Orthodox ready and willing to discuss this with you.

Great.





.

 

[Ignatius21]

This is explained at length here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/
If you have any questions about that, please feel free to ask. Thanks!




.

CJ,

I quoted that thread at the very beginning. I have read it. Josh has read it. I'm sorry, but your particular definition there is not the be-all-end-all of the discussion nor the "norm" by which this discussion need occur. You seem to have ignored my repeated claims that the fine distinctions you've made IN THAT THREAD are of little use and serve only to discuss theory and ethereal ideas. In the real world they don't work otu. I have not yet heard you interact with that idea.

I'm sorry but you seem to be holding yourself (and your thread) up as the self-authenticating authority that you so much seek to avoid.

Forgive me.

 

[Philothei]

Ecumenical Councils were ancient attempts at arbitration. Another issue for another day and thread.... Lutherans lament the egoism, individualism, and institutionalism that for the past 1200 years (plus) have made it impossible to even HAVE an Ecumenical Council - much less accomplish anything in it. We need to address the issues of accountability and then of the rule/canon before we can get to that. I'm not holding my breath, lol.....


I've been to Toledo, Spain. When I was a kid growing up, my best friend (you know how that goes when you're a kid) was VERY Catholic and came from a rather important family in Spain (although he was born here, his part of the family fled Spain during the civil war there). After he graduated from high school, he moved to Spain to attend university and for better employment opportunities (such being more influence by family than here). Anyway, a few years ago, I spent pretty much the season of Christmas with him and his family, just outside Madrid. Mark took me all over the area, to lots of the things around there. In Toledo, we actually worshipped at the Cathedral - and it DID seem powerful that HERE were some very important and historic church councils....

This is off topic and has nothing to do with the SS whatsover.

If you want to discuss it then you can open a thread.
You accept and have SS as praxis due to the "councils" and call them arbitration then...all of the Books that were accepted in the cannon are artitrary... Are you sure that is what you meant to say? That for some reason does not make too much sense. Our faith then is in the danger to be arbitrary then...

And why would ONLY Lutherans would "lament"? Do you think that our EO leaders are rejoicing for the whole world of Chrisitanity is divided? lol... Any Christian with a concience would feel sad we are all split.. period!

 

[Ignatius21]

I've been to Toledo, Spain. When I was a kid growing up, my best friend (you know how that goes when you're a kid) was VERY Catholic and came from a rather important family in Spain (although he was born here, his part of the family fled Spain during the civil war there). After he graduated from high school, he moved to Spain to attend university and for better employment opportunities (such being more influence by family than here). Anyway, a few years ago, I spent pretty much the season of Christmas with him and his family, just outside Madrid. Mark took me all over the area, to lots of the things around there. In Toledo, we actually worshipped at the Cathedral - and it DID seem powerful that HERE were some very important and historic church councils....

My "admittedly snarky) reference to Toledo, Spain was made because it was at a local council in Toledo that the filioque ("and the Son") clause was first added to the Nicene/Constantinople Creed, where previously it had said simply "from the Father." It formalized dual procession of the Holy Spirit in Western creeds, although it took centuries for it to really work itself into the West and to ultimately contribute to the East/West schism that continues to this day. The point was that, in Orthodox ecclesiology, an ecumenical council carries a greater authority (is a higher "norm" if you will) than a local council. The Creed was initiated at the first Ecumenical Council, amended at the second Ecumenical Council...and then rather unilaterally changed at a local council without the consent or agreement of the rest of the Church.

So Orthodoxy rejects that addition to the Creed because (a) they believe it contradicts the doctrine of the Holy Spirit that was solidified at the earlier councils, and has negative impact on many other key areas of theology and (b) because it was changed outside of an Ecumenical Council and therefore violated the established model of concilarity.

That's the reason I mentioned Toledo. Yes this is off topic but I thought I'd clarify (and hopefully it gives a bit more insight into Orthodox ecclesiology).

 

[Ignatius21]

CJ,

Please let me ask a clarifying question...since you've mentioned physics and scientific processes several times, maybe I can make an analogy. Please correct me if I'm completely mistaken, but which of the following four options would best represent the "norma normans" as you describe it, if the question on the table is "How can the scientific community determine the mass of an object?"

(a) We shall measure mass against an internationally agreed-upon unit (doesn't say which unit).

(b) We shall measure mass against an internationally agreed-upon unit, and this unit shall be the international kilogram (doesn't define the kilogram itself, but much more specific than (a)).

(c) We shall measure mass against an internationally agreed-upon unit, and this unit shall be the international kilogram defined by the metal cylinder in Paris (leaves no room for doubt as to what the kilogram shall be considered to be).

(d) The norm is the metal cylinder in Paris itself.

Based on the post that you continually reference, my guess is that (b) is the closest analogy to your understanding of using Scripture as the "norm that norms all norms" for judging doctrine. It defines praxis, but it works regardless of exactly how one defines the unit of measure itself.

-Bill

ps. Let's ignore for the present that the international kilogram in Paris has itself lost mass, and therefore introduces the real philosophical conundrum of "just what the heck is a kilogram anyway?"

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This is off topic and has nothing to do with the SS whatsover.

If you want to discuss it then you can open a thread.

True.

I only BRIEFLY responded to a post where they were brought up.

You accept and have SS as praxis due to the "councils"

I don't.

And why would ONLY Lutherans would "lament"?

Did I say "ONLY Lutherans?" If not, then I don't understand your question.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ,

You seem to have ignored my repeated claims that the fine distinctions you've made IN THAT THREAD are of little use and serve only to discuss theory and ethereal ideas .

This thread is a discussion of what is and is not the praxis of Sola Scriptura.
I gave you the official, historic definition.
If you don't agree with it, then we're talking past each other.
And there's nothing I can do about that.
I gave you the official, historic definition. Verbatim.
I gave you what has been here described as a good explanation of such.
If you think it's wrong, then I've done all I can.


As I stated, in the 6 years I've been at CF and have discussed this, to date not a single Protestant has disgreed (even in a micro way) with what is in that post. Indeed, more than one Reformed Protestant has used the exact, verbatim wording from the Lutheran Confessions. But if you think it's the wrong definition, so be it.






.