Sola Scriptura vs. Nuda Scriptura

[hedrick]

In our liturgical cycle there are some feast days where various anathemas are still read such as the Feast of Orthodoxy on the seventh EC on iconoclasm.

Those who apply the sayings of the divine Scripture that are directed against idols to the august icons of Christ our God and his saints: Anathema!

Those who say that Christians treat the icons like gods: Anathema!

Those who celebrate throwing out dissenters: Anathema

 

[pescador]

Exodus 20:4, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water below."

Romans 1:22-23, "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles."

 

[Andrewn]

By the way, speaking of Canadian things, do you know of any Anglican parishes still using the 1962 BCP rather than the Alternative Service Book?

No, not any longer, as far as I know.

I didn’t list any churches as Nuda Scriptura. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination which fits that definition.

I see EO and Baptists as 2 diametrically opposed ends of the spectrum. If you accept both, then the term Nuda Scriptura only refers to unusual personal opinions not shared by the majority in one's congregation.

 

[Taodeching]

Nuda scriptura on the other hand sees itself as unconstrained by historic interpretations, often believing there to have been a great apostasy between the time the last book of the New Testament was written and the founding of their church. Of course, most people who use Nuda Scriptura call it Sola Scriptura, but the term Nuda Scriptura was coined to refer to those who are unfettered by continuity with the Early Church Fathers or the Ecumenical Councils or St. Augustine, whose influence on all of the magisterial Protestant reformers of the 16th century (Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Melancthon, etc.) was enormous.

Are you talking about Solo Scriptura?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

What I love about the Orthodox Church is it will resist to the point of martyrdom anything like that; consider the heroism of the laity, who with only St. Mark of Ephesus on their side, stood up to nearly the entire hierarchy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople to reject the Council of Florence, even though it was clear to all of them that this would inevitably lead to Turkocratia, and it did, and many Orthodox were martyred, who could have lived if they viewed doctrine as something mutable and not worth dying for, had they not stopped the bishops from signing on the 15th century equivalent of a dotted line with the Roman Catholic Church during its period of doctrinal confusion with the Avignon schism, the corruption of the Borgias, the sale of indulgences and other things that led to the Reformation. And if the Eastern Orthodox churches had joined the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformation would have divided them as well.

long ago, on Orthodox Christianity.net that kind of thing was a weapon of spite when those Byzantines were looking down at the Oriental churches, saying Saint Anthony would be on their side, claim the See of Alexandria etc.


If you really are into Ignatius of Antioch etc. what they did sort of puts in you up poop creek. And he is a favorite guy to quote since he strongly puts forward the role of the bishop for those nude scripture people that would normally think that happened "after centuries of corruption".


OF course if you want to go with the notion "of the people as the guardians of Orthodoxy" then you would have to do things like admit that the Coptic church has the real apostolic See of Alexandria, because the people definitely voted with their feet once troops left from emperor Justinian (or whoever that was that occupied the area).

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Note that the Nicene Creed you are using there is the old one, from 325. When I or most people say Nicene Creed, we mean the updated version, revised at the Council of Chalcedon in 381, which lacks any anathema in the creed itself, and is strictly a confession of faith.

The later council creeds also have anathemas in them also though. The practice continued, it's therefore a foundation.

The foundation was not corrected in practice. Therefore, since the sermon on the mount was not heeded, cracks in the foundation formed over the years, expanded, and churches became islands from one another divided by sand.

 

[GallagherM]

What is nuda scriptura?

What is that like living via sola spiritus? lol

Able to recall upon the truths of God without the bible through the spirit because of the knowledge of recalling upon what has been learned from the bible when you do not got it with you ?

Yesterday I made the video truth of the flesh without the bible and I believe it a great explanation of what the flesh is and what the spirit does. I could be wrong though others may not think it is very good Oh well God bless.

 

[The Liturgist]

The later council creeds also have anathemas in them also though. The practice continued, it's therefore a foundation.

The foundation was not corrected in practice. Therefore, since the sermon on the mount was not heeded, cracks in the foundation formed over the years, expanded, and churches became islands from one another divided by sand.

Just so you know, there were no creeds issued by an Ecumenical Council after the Council of Constantinople in 381, and there is no anathema in the revised Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, or the Nicene Creed as it is normally called, even though it is a revision of the Nicene Creed as we discussed nefore.

The provenance of the so-called Athanasian Creed, better called by its Latin name Quincunque Vult, because it postdates St. Athanasius by centuries, is unknown, but it was not the product of an ecumenical council; it does have statements that warn that whoever does not follow its doctrine will not be saved, which is akin to an anthema, but again, it was not the product of an ecumenical council. I believe it was a creedal hymn like Ho Monogenes and Te Deum Laudamus, since historically the Anglican church sang it like a canticle.

So there were no creeds per se after Constantinople. There were dogmatic definitions, which were formulated with anathemas, in the format that “whoever believes this” or “whoever does not do this”, “let him be (deposed, degraded, excommunicated, or anathema.” And there were also anathemas against specific persons deemed heretics, or heresiarchs, many of which I object to, but not the anathema against Nestorius, who was a violent scoundrel, or the anathema against the Monothelites responsible for the death of St. Maximus the Confessor by cutting his tongue out, or the anathema against the Byzantine rulers and their subordinates who used violence to enforce iconoclasm. But these anathemas are all in the acts of the councils; there were no Conciliar Creeds after the 381 revision of the Nicene Creed. Indeed, a canon issued by the Council of Ephesus and confirmed at Chalcedon forbade anyone from changing the revised Nicene creed from 381.

 

[The Liturgist]

Those who celebrate throwing out dissenters: Anathema

St. Paul commands anathematizing anyone who preaches a different Gospel. And to be fair, most of the people anathematized by church aren’t even Christian. The Arians weren’t, the Gnostics weren’t, the Sabellians weren’t, nor were the Sabellians, Montanists, Macedonians, Manichees, Docetists, Marcionists, Valentinians, Eunomians, etc. Anyone who can’t agree with the CF.com Statement of Faith, which is pretty loose, is obviously preaching a different Gospel, and I am going to regard them as the wolves in sheep’s clothing our Lord warned us about and follow the instructions of St. Paul of they show up in my church.

However, I am with you in that I do oppose strongly anathemas for non-violent theological dissent or especially anathemas issued post mortem, to people who died in the peace of the church, like Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia (who is venerated as a saint in the Assyrian Church, and Origen was widely venerated).

By the way, anathemas, unlike diamonds, are not forever; once can repent of a heresy and be received back into communion, and also they are not the same as damning someone, and it also does not refer to retaining a sin rather than forgiving a sin; the word actually means “lifted up to God” and the explanation a friend of mine who is also a clergyman gives is that it is basically the church praying “We can’t help these people; we have exhausted our capabilities, and therefore we commend their souls to You, our Heavenly Father.”

 

[The Liturgist]

long ago, on Orthodox Christianity.net that kind of thing was a weapon of spite when those Byzantines were looking down at the Oriental churches, saying Saint Anthony would be on their side, claim the See of Alexandria etc.


If you really are into Ignatius of Antioch etc. what they did sort of puts in you up poop creek. And he is a favorite guy to quote since he strongly puts forward the role of the bishop for those nude scripture people that would normally think that happened "after centuries of corruption".


OF course if you want to go with the notion "of the people as the guardians of Orthodoxy" then you would have to do things like admit that the Coptic church has the real apostolic See of Alexandria, because the people definitely voted with their feet once troops left from emperor Justinian (or whoever that was that occupied the area).

Well, the current Coptic and Greek Popes of Alexandria get on famously, and are both named Theodore II, and the Greek Pope historically lead the shrinking Alexandrian Greek community, but is now, as the Patriarch of All Africa, more focused on the parishes in South Africa and other countries, as well as all of the missions, which in the Oriental church are somewhat a shared responsibility of the Coptic and Ethiopian churches (and Armenian churches in South Africa and elsewhere in Africa will be under the omophorion of one of the two Catholicoi).

 

[The Liturgist]

In our liturgical cycle there are some feast days where various anathemas are still read such as the Feast of Orthodoxy on the seventh EC on iconoclasm.

Those who apply the sayings of the divine Scripture that are directed against idols to the august icons of Christ our God and his saints: Anathema!

Those who say that Christians treat the icons like gods: Anathema!

Indeed, that is an anathema I can get behind, because false accusations of idolatry are horrible, and the Byzantine Empire was iconoclastic from the top down and violent in its persecution of iconodules.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Just so you know, there were no creeds issued by an Ecumenical Council after the Council of Constantinople in 381, and there is no anathema in the revised Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, or the Nicene Creed as it is normally called, even though it is a revision of the Nicene Creed as we discussed nefore.

The provenance of the so-called Athanasian Creed, better called by its Latin name Quincunque Vult, because it postdates St. Athanasius by centuries, is unknown, but it was not the product of an ecumenical council; it does have statements that warn that whoever does not follow its doctrine will not be saved, which is akin to an anthema, but again, it was not the product of an ecumenical council. I believe it was a creedal hymn like Ho Monogenes and Te Deum Laudamus, since historically the Anglican church sang it like a canticle.

So there were no creeds per se after Constantinople. There were dogmatic definitions, which were formulated with anathemas, in the format that “whoever believes this” or “whoever does not do this”, “let him be (deposed, degraded, excommunicated, or anathema.” And there were also anathemas against specific persons deemed heretics, or heresiarchs, many of which I object to, but not the anathema against Nestorius, who was a violent scoundrel, or the anathema against the Monothelites responsible for the death of St. Maximus the Confessor by cutting his tongue out, or the anathema against the Byzantine rulers and their subordinates who used violence to enforce iconoclasm. But these anathemas are all in the acts of the councils; there were no Conciliar Creeds after the 381 revision of the Nicene Creed. Indeed, a canon issued by the Council of Ephesus and confirmed at Chalcedon forbade anyone from changing the revised Nicene creed from 381.

Thank you for the history lesson, it seems painting over a moldy wall is ineffective. I'll continue dealing with the spiritual fallout of the curses that are currently in effect.