Sola Scriptura?

[~Anastasia~]

I agree; all of the sections were added by you. However, it seemed like your post was listing the gist of what you got out of our conversation. I had no intention of implying that last part in any of my posts.

Honestly, the last section in particular seems like an unfair (or at least biased / uncalled for) representation of the Eastern Orthodox Church's opinion - and at minimum was not what I tried to convey ("since of course we all know that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the sole legitimate representative/continuation of the early Church on the face of God's green earth and throughout the universe, forever and ever, unto the ages of ages, amen").

That said, I am not trying to convince Albion to change his opinion, but rather explain our perspective. Some statements were made about the EO Church which are not accurate, so I am doing my best to clarify them.

I would agree, that it seems Orthodoxy is not being understood on some points. And the purpose of TT is so that we can understand one another. I have wanted to correct certain misconceptions, but when I see that you have, I have not repeated you. But that's the way I saw it too.

Apparently there are undercurrents of misunderstanding here.

 

[dzheremi]

Of course that's the gist of what I got out of the conversation. I don't understand what you are getting at by putting it that way. That's the point of posting in the first place, as the conversation seemed to be narrowing to the point of becoming a back-and-forth between two or maybe three posters, with no hope of resolution. That's how it looked like to an outsider (me), so in an effort to break the chain, I posted something. Sorry if that somehow ruined the conversation. I don't make it over here very often, so I am not really aware of whatever dynamics may be in play regarding EO/Anglican conversations.

Anyway, regarding the bit concerning EO in particular, I had in mind exchanges like post #326 and following on the previous page, wherein Albion calls theory what is clarified by EO posters to be believed as truth. I don't see it as a matter of triumphalism at all (rather, it's exactly what I would expect, since you do after all believe these things to be truths, so why wouldn't you say so? That's not triumphalism, in that context), but it is most definitely a matter of the EO calling truth what others call something else, in this case. And vice-versa when the hermeneutic of Sola Scriptura is invoked in the context of calling what others do suspect by this or that means. That's why you're are talking at cross purposes in the first place, and that's why I found it funny that it took this long for both sides to agree to the reality of the disagreement (posts 334-335), since it seems very obvious and intractable.

 

[All4Christ]

Of course that's the gist of what I got out of the conversation. I don't understand what you are getting at by putting it that way. That's the point of posting in the first place, as the conversation seemed to be narrowing to the point of becoming a back-and-forth between two or maybe three posters, with no hope of resolution. That's how it looked like to an outsider (me), so in an effort to break the chain, I posted something. Sorry if that somehow ruined the conversation. I don't make it over here very often, so I am not really aware of whatever dynamics may be in play regarding EO/Anglican conversations.

Anyway, regarding the bit concerning EO in particular, I had in mind exchanges like post #326 and following on the previous page, wherein Albion calls theory what is clarified by EO posters to be believed as truth. I don't see it as a matter of triumphalism at all (rather, it's exactly what I would expect, since you do after all believe these things to be truths, so why wouldn't you say so? That's not triumphalism, in that context), but it is most definitely a matter of the EO calling truth what others call something else, in this case. And vice-versa when the hermeneutic of Sola Scriptura is invoked in the context of calling what others do suspect by this or that means. That's why you're are talking at cross purposes in the first place, and that's why I found it funny that it took this long for both sides to agree to the reality of the disagreement (posts 334-335), since it seems very obvious and intractable.

Albion and I have readily admitted in the past (multiple times) that we are not trying to convince eachother but rather have the goal of explaining our viewpoints. You are right, however, that the differences between Sola Scriptura and EO beliefs cannot be fully reconciled.

My point of contention was the sardonic, or perhaps mocking, perspective in your post about EO beliefs...the last paragraph in particular.

I really appreciate your views and perspectives, and I'd love to see your posts more often in Traditional Theology. I just didn't see your post as your typical response style - and was surprised if that was the attitude you perceived on my previous posts.

 

[dzheremi]

My point of contention was the sardonic, or perhaps mocking, perspective in your post about EO beliefs...the last paragraph in particular.

Here's the thing, though: if it is Albion's contention, following post #326, that the EO are arguing by essentially the same method that the RC do -- namely, that what they believe is what has always been believed everywhere -- then what is wrong with pointing that out? You believe you are the one true Church and that your beliefs that are seen by others (e.g., Anglicans) as 'theory' are in fact true, so it is a de facto appeal to historical roots not any less than when RCs make their claims with the same reasoning in mind, despite the fact that you two disagree with each other.

While I don't agree with any of you in the particulars, I can certainly see where Albion is coming from with regard to that particular objection, just as I can see where you are coming from in your replies.

I just didn't see your post as your typical response style - and was surprised if that was the attitude you perceived on my previous posts.

I'm not even sure it's correct to call it an attitude in any case, as it is more characteristic of a worldview than anything. Attitudes can be changed, but tell someone outside of your confession something that seems blindingly obvious to someone inside of it ("Rome is wrong", "Chalcedon is wrong", "Dioscoros is a heretic", whatever), and watch the hackles go up and fur fly. If the fact of the matter is that nobody is trying to convert each other, and so nobody is expected to concede anything, then can it really be so wrong to laugh when the conversations go on forever anyway?

 

[gordonhooker]

I agree with dzheremi over the last few pages it has become a lot like watching the Indianapolis 500 speedway - it just keeps going around and around and around...

Yikes that sounds like a quote by Billy Birmingham

 

[All4Christ]

f the fact of the matter is that nobody is trying to convert each other, and so nobody is expected to concede anything, then can it really be so wrong to laugh when the conversations go on forever anyway?

If you can't see how what you said is offensive, in that I don't believe I portrayed that attitude (there is an attitude that comes along with presenting a worldview), then so be it.

Sure, this conversation has gone on for much longer than needed, but no need to mock derisively. Laugh about it, or whatever; that's not the problem in and of itself. Just consider the context of what you say.

That said, blessings to you all.

 

[All4Christ]

... over the last few pages it has become a lot like watching the Indianapolis 500 speedway - it just keeps going around and around and around...

Yikes that sounds like a quote by Billy Birmingham

Honestly, it has often been like that for the past 18 pages! Sometimes a few more variations in the speedway, but still, similar arguments, going around and around

The best I can hope for is increased understanding of where we we all come from. Perhaps we are past that point though.

 

[Albion]

I agree that the disagreement is real; on that point we can agree. I am not trying to convince you that there is no disagreement.

What I am trying to clarify is the difference between the two approaches to Holy Tradition. The different views make a significant impact on theology.

That said, I am clarifying this due to a consistent pattern of discussion stating that the RCC Holy Tradition and Orthodox Holy Tradition are the same theologically - albeit one more restrained than the other. They are different, which causes the difference in theology.

I can appreciate your wanting to draw a distinction between the RC and EO approaches to Tradition. However, to me, the differences are minor. They both add doctrines which are derived from custom, legend, opinion, speculation, and so on, which IMO is not right. That, in a nutshell, is the essential objection of those who take a stand for Sola Scriptura. It doesn't really matter when they were added or if a church council was involved.

 

[Albion]

Honestly, it has often been like that for the past 18 pages! Sometimes a few more variations in the speedway, but still, similar arguments, going around and around

I certainly agree, and we have had to fight to keep from wandering into side issues. On the other hand, I haven't minded because some progress was made IMHO and the conversation was cordial and sincere unlike so many others here on CF.

 

[All4Christ]

I certainly agree, and we have had to fight to keep from wandering into side issues. On the other hand, I haven't minded because some progress was made IMHO and the conversation was cordial and sincere unlike so many others here on CF.

Agreed 100%

 

[gordonhooker]

Honestly, it has often been like that for the past 18 pages! Sometimes a few more variations in the speedway, but still, similar arguments, going around and around

The best I can hope for is increased understanding of where we we all come from. Perhaps we are past that point though.

Of course you are correct 18 pages are a few more then a few

 

[All4Christ]

I can appreciate your wanting to draw a distinction between the RC and EO approaches to Tradition. However, to me, the differences are minor. They both add doctrines which are derived from custom, legend, opinion, speculation, and so on, which IMO is not right. That, in a nutshell, is the essential objection of those who take a stand for Sola Scriptura. It doesn't really matter when they were added or if a church council was involved.

Understood - and I agree that this is the central point of disagreement between Sola Scriptura and those who hold to Holy Tradition.

That said, to me, the differences in our approaches (EO and RCC) are significant, hence the desire to clarify

 

[dzheremi]

EO compatriots,

Far be it for me to tell you or anyone that you shouldn't be offended by anything you find offensive, but it was not my intention to deliberately offend anyone, so much as to point out that I see where Albion is coming from on that specific point (EO and RC argumentation being essentially the same, in that in both cases they are rooted in the idea that what _______ believes and practices is the practice and belief of the early Church entire), and so of course I do not think it is wrong to point that out.

That said, I apologize for having offended you and will certainly try to be more aware of how my posts may sound to others in the future.

 

[gordonhooker]

As far as the argument about because something was not thought to be written down because it was accepted by the members of the early church means it cannot be part of Doctrine is just plain wrong in my humble opinion... When I read some of the comments here that say that, it reminds me of this clip from the movie A Few Good Men where CPL Barnes is giving evidence in the court martial, you will see what I mean from position 1:45 to the end.

 

[All4Christ]

EO compatriots,

Far be it for me to tell you or anyone that you shouldn't be offended by anything you find offensive, but it was not my intention to deliberately offend anyone, so much as to point out that I see where Albion is coming from on that specific point (EO and RC argumentation being essentially the same, in that in both cases they are rooted in the idea that what _______ believes and practices is the practice and belief of the early Church entire), and so of course I do not think it is wrong to point that out.

That said, I apologize for having offended you and will certainly try to be more aware of how my posts may sound to others in the future.

Thanks dzheremi...I appreciate this. FTR, your point here does make sense.

(I try to be careful with phrasing our beliefs because they can so easily be misconstrued as being arrogant...so perhaps that is why I am sensitive - perhaps over sensitive - in that area.)

 

[Paidiske]

I admittedly am not an expert in Anglican theology, so please take this as someone who is curious to understand your beliefs. I've been reading lately about various church's beliefs on the Eucharist, and came across this: Anglican eucharistic theology - Wikipedia

Is that description of three different views of the Eucharist within Anglicanism accurate? Do you consider them to be along the lines of what you mentioned - two languages expressing the same belief?

Broadly accurate, yes, I think so. And yes, I do consider them to be different languages expressing the same belief; that belief being that in the Eucharist, Christ is present to us. We then construct our understanding of that through different philosophical filters and so forth, but the basic underlying reality is, I believe, the same for the most Anglo-Catholic and the most Reformed communicant; when we receive communion we receive Christ, and God's grace is at work in us. When we rise from our knees we may go back to arguing how that is, but in that moment when we receive there is no difference between us.

My point of contention was the sardonic, or perhaps mocking, perspective in your post about EO beliefs...the last paragraph in particular.

I really appreciate your views and perspectives, and I'd love to see your posts more often in Traditional Theology. I just didn't see your post as your typical response style - and was surprised if that was the attitude you perceived on my previous posts.

My perspective is that dzheremi over-egged the attitude, because your attitude is always generous and gentle and thoughtful.

But this is a problem I do find with the Orthodox position; it doesn't really matter how generously, gently and thoughtfully it is put, to an outsider it can come across as inexpressibly arrogant; not just because of its own claims to exclusively hold the fullness of truth, but because of its dismissal as invalid of so much of other people's authentic relationship with God. And I don't really know that there's an easy way to get around that.

 

[dzheremi]

Praise be to the one God of us all that the time of deliberately hurting each other because of our differences is over, in the long past. Now we work together on common challenges and problems, and hold a deep love for one another that transcends official communion boundaries, as is seen (sadly) in the pain suffered by the continuing abduction of our beloved bishops, HG Archbishop Yuhanna Ibrahim of the Syriac Orthodox Church and HE Metropolitan Paul Yazigi of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, may they be returned unharmed to their respective flocks. Lord have mercy.

As I thought I made clear earlier (but perhaps it was not so clear; forgive me...obviously the things I post make sense to me, since I am the one posting them, but as we can see here, that's not good enough! ), I do not find EO stances vis-a-vis other churches or other ways of being Christian to be triumphalist or arrogant at all. Rather, they seem to me to be the natural outgrowth of your true belief in your Church -- that it has kept the faith unchanged in all this time, and that it has uniquely done so, such that it can claim to be the continuation of the apostolic faith without blemish. My only point is that looking at that kind of argumentation from the outside, I see why the reasonableness or historicity or whatever you want to call it of that argumentation could be contested by someone who is not looking at things from that perspective. That's all. And indeed Albion is right that both RC and EO do say that. You do say "This (thing that we believe) is the belief of the early Church; this is the catholic faith", even as you disagree with one another on what should be contained in it and on what grounds.

That's really it. Hopefully you'll note that I'm not even coming down in favor of one side or the other (because I'm on neither side, though my position is irrelevnt), only saying "Yeah, I think I can see where you're coming from." If the Anglicans are arguing sufficiency and the EO are arguing tradition, then it seems to me that you're essentially having different conversations. And your conversation relies on a certain worldview being taken as normative or at least authoritative, and so does theirs.

And now I want to thank Paidiske for introducing me to the wonderful idiom "over-egg", which I don't think I'd ever heard or read before now. I don't know how I missed it, but it's lovely. Thank you. And, yes, I did, but you've also hit on why I did that in your reply: Because when that's the crux of the argument (we are right, meaning that you are at least somewhat wrong), it's hard to avoid.

I mean, here I am saying that I don't personally see it that way (because I'd be saying the same thing about my own Church if it were in the conversation, even though we don't argue exactly as EO and RC do), and I still see where Paidiske is coming from! That's how hard it is, so I understand your sensitivity, All4Christ.

 

[All4Christ]

Broadly accurate, yes, I think so. And yes, I do consider them to be different languages expressing the same belief; that belief being that in the Eucharist, Christ is present to us. We then construct our understanding of that through different philosophical filters and so forth, but the basic underlying reality is, I believe, the same for the most Anglo-Catholic and the most Reformed communicant; when we receive communion we receive Christ, and God's grace is at work in us. When we rise from our knees we may go back to arguing how that is, but in that moment when we receive there is no difference between us.



My perspective is that dzheremi over-egged the attitude, because your attitude is always generous and gentle and thoughtful.

But this is a problem I do find with the Orthodox position; it doesn't really matter how generously, gently and thoughtfully it is put, to an outsider it can come across as inexpressibly arrogant; not just because of its own claims to exclusively hold the fullness of truth, but because of its dismissal as invalid of so much of other people's authentic relationship with God. And I don't really know that there's an easy way to get around that.

Honestly, I understand where you are coming from, and I don't have an easy answer. I especially understand considering how some past interactions I've seen with other Orthodox Christians here on CF. (Sadly, some also have an arrogant attitude). That said, I do want to mention that I certainly believe you and many others who are not EO have an authentic relationship with God. (I know the concern is bigger than that though.)

 

[All4Christ]

Praise be to the one God of us all that the time of deliberately hurting each other because of our differences is over, in the long past. Now we work together on common challenges and problems, and hold a deep love for one another that transcends official communion boundaries, as is seen (sadly) in the pain suffered by the continuing abduction of our beloved bishops, HG Archbishop Yuhanna Ibrahim of the Syriac Orthodox Church and HE Metropolitan Paul Yazigi of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, may they be returned unharmed to their respective flocks. Lord have mercy.

As I thought I made clear earlier (but perhaps it was not so clear; forgive me...obviously the things I post make sense to me, since I am the one posting them, but as we can see here, that's not good enough! ), I do not find EO stances vis-a-vis other churches or other ways of being Christian to be triumphalist or arrogant at all. Rather, they seem to me to be the natural outgrowth of your true belief in your Church -- that it has kept the faith unchanged in all this time, and that it has uniquely done so, such that it can claim to be the continuation of the apostolic faith without blemish. My only point is that looking at that kind of argumentation from the outside, I see why the reasonableness or historicity or whatever you want to call it of that argumentation could be contested by someone who is not looking at things from that perspective. That's all. And indeed Albion is right that both RC and EO do say that. You do say "This (thing that we believe) is the belief of the early Church; this is the catholic faith", even as you disagree with one another on what should be contained in it and on what grounds.

That's really it. Hopefully you'll note that I'm not even coming down in favor of one side or the other (because I'm on neither side, though my position is irrelevnt), only saying "Yeah, I think I can see where you're coming from." If the Anglicans are arguing sufficiency and the EO are arguing tradition, then it seems to me that you're essentially having different conversations. And your conversation relies on a certain worldview being taken as normative or at least authoritative, and so does theirs.

And now I want to thank Paidiske for introducing me to the wonderful idiom "over-egg", which I don't think I'd ever heard or read before now. I don't know how I missed it, but it's lovely. Thank you. And, yes, I did, but you've also hit on why I did that in your reply: Because when that's the crux of the argument (we are right, meaning that you are at least somewhat wrong), it's hard to avoid.

I mean, here I am saying that I don't personally see it that way (because I'd be saying the same thing about my own Church if it were in the conversation, even though we don't argue exactly as EO and RC do), and I still see where Paidiske is coming from! That's how hard it is, so I understand your sensitivity, All4Christ.

Makes perfect sense

I love that prayer, BTW. I hope someday the barriers between our churches can be broken down so we can be fully in communion once more!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Honestly, I understand where you are coming from, and I don't have an easy answer. I especially understand considering how some past interactions I've seen with other Orthodox Christians here on CF. (Sadly, some also have an arrogant attitude). That said, I do want to mention that I certainly believe you and many others who are not EO have an authentic relationship with God. (I know the concern is bigger than that though.)

I will simply echo what A4C said, since I think it's especially important.

Yes, some EO are arrogant. We are all in the process of becoming like Christ, none of us claim to be perfected, so it shouldn't surprise us. There are even particular paths within the Church that somewhat set people up for that - thankfully these tend to happen sometimes online, but rarely in real Orthodox communities.

But more importantly, I most certainly don't dismiss the experience of Christians outside the EO Church with God. In a way, I feel I have a lot of catching up to do, coming so terribly late to the Church I have been led to. But otoh, I'm thankful, because I have my own very authentic experience with God, in the context of different Christian fellowships even, to serve as a reminder to me of the profound relationship God can have with persons in various backgrounds, as well as my great-grandmother I mentioned who was Baptist through and through, and practically a Saint on earth.

I hope I never come across as dismissing the relationship anyone else has with God. That is never my intent, and hopefully never my thought. If it gets read into my posts, I apologize for that.