Sola Scriptura?

[Paidiske]

Laura, Anastasia, my comment was not a criticism of either of you personally. Truly, it wasn't; you have been nothing but hospitable and open in my interactions with you.

The problem is not here with people but with the truth claims of Orthodoxy, which, if they really are true, put all of the rest of us in a problematic position with regard to our Christian faith. Now, I'm not surprised that Orthodox Christians would accept Orthodox teaching, of course, but... some of the things Orthodoxy claims are frankly insulting to everyone else. And we can avoid that and be polite about it, but it is difficult not to bump up against it on occasion if we will insist on actually talking about what our churches teach.

If that makes sense?

 

[All4Christ]

Laura, Anastasia, my comment was not a criticism of either of you personally. Truly, it wasn't; you have been nothing but hospitable and open in my interactions with you.

The problem is not here with people but with the truth claims of Orthodoxy, which, if they really are true, put all of the rest of us in a problematic position with regard to our Christian faith. Now, I'm not surprised that Orthodox Christians would accept Orthodox teaching, of course, but... some of the things Orthodoxy claims are frankly insulting to everyone else. And we can avoid that and be polite about it, but it is difficult not to bump up against it on occasion if we will insist on actually talking about what our churches teach.

If that makes sense?

Short answer, I understand and can sympathize from my past experiences.

One note (I'm not trying to diminish what you are saying), while you are right, we also have many "multiple layer" beliefs, so I'd like to emphasize that we don't preclude authentic spiritual experiences to just the Eastern Orthodox Church, and we certainly don't limit our understanding who will be saved to Orthodox Christians. I know that doesn't eliminate the effect of the beliefs you are referencing, but I think it often comes across as even more judgmental than it is in reality...at least on my part and what I've been taught at my parish. I think @~Anastasia~ would confirm that.

But yes, it makes perfect sense and I certainly understand, since those beliefs were some difficult beliefs for myself - and I still don't know how to explain them to family...so I often avoid talking about them

 

[~Anastasia~]

Short answer, I understand and can sympathize from my past experiences.

One note (I'm not trying to diminish what you are saying), while you are right, we also have many "multiple layer" beliefs, so I'd like to emphasize that we don't preclude authentic spiritual experiences to just the Eastern Orthodox Church, and we certainly don't limit our understanding who will be saved to Orthodox Christians. I know that doesn't eliminate the affect of the beliefs you are referencing, but I think it often comes across as even more judgmental than it is in reality...at least on my part and what I've been taught at my parish. I think @~Anastasia~ would confirm that.

But yes, it makes perfect sense and I certainly understand, since those beliefs were some difficult beliefs for myself - and I still don't know how to explain them to family...so I often avoid talking about them

Well-said.

TBH, I took offense at Orthodoxy myself initially, so I can understand. And there were just plain things that I wanted to be otherwise than what they were.

I don't want to comment on these being resolved, because it has been different in different particulars.

It can be like walking a tightrope, trying not to offend, while at the same time speaking what we regard as truth, and knowing at the same time that the layers A4C is referencing won't be apparent to the person who is listening. That's one reason I frequently refer at least to the fact that we do not judge salvation of others, nor limit God to our own experiences.

I wish there was a way to further smooth things out, but I don't know what that would be.


And for myself, I am happy to discuss things I have learned from the Church, but apart from CF I rarely discuss the Church itself, unless someone ASKS, because it does so greatly risk offense, and that is not my intent at all.

 

[All4Christ]

You know, my new autocorrect keyboard introduces many grammatical errors...i keep having to go back and edit my posts . It's supposed to make it quicker, lol.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Actually, this has been a great discussion. I'm an equal opportunity ecumanist in that there is much that all the traditional liturgical Churches share; including a lot of common history. That being said, there is still much that divides the faithful, and there are, unfortunately, still barriers to full communion and full unity at present. However that does not preclude cooperation, mutual support and unity when it comes to the faithful interacting in society. Our Churches do these things already with on going dialogues, supporting each other in times of need, and supporting society in those times as well.

Our varying views on this topic of Sola Scriptura have never prevented my Church from recognizing the validity of of the beliefs and faith of our fellow Christians. Most recently, with the attacks on OO and EO Christians being targeted, in our Sunday Liturgies, we pray for those Churches by name, despite differences in our views regarding Tradition and Scripture.

Those of us here have zeal for our faith, so it is natural that we, each and all of us, believe that we are more right, and that's OK; better that than being lukewarm as we read in The Revelation of St. John!

God bless you all!

 

[Mary of Bethany]

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.

dzheremi,

I just wanted to say that we pray for these Bishops and the Christians in Syria & Egypt and elsewhere in every Divine Liturgy. Lord, have mercy on them!

 

[HighCherub]

So as of right now, I'm coming to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is basically impossible.

Sola Scriptura is not some grand theological ordinance. Rather, it is simply a rejection of the papacy.

The papacy was not founded by any direct observance of the Bible, but by the tradition of the Pharisees- they sat in the Seat of Moses, and so Rome attempts to sit in the Seat of Peter.

 

[ripple the car]

Sola Scriptura is not some grand theological ordinance. Rather, it is simply a rejection of the papacy.

The papacy was not founded by any direct observance of the Bible, but by the tradition of the Pharisees- they sat in the Seat of Moses, and so Rome attempts to sit in the Seat of Peter.

I don't really see the issue as only a rejection if the Papacy, as Orthodox Christians also reject Sola Scriptura, and have a view of the Roman Pontiff which makes them distinct from Catholics.

My issue with Sola Scriptura is that it doesn't quite work. Everyone sees something different, reads their own ideas into the text, and has the capacity to take an idea and run with it.

I love the Bible. It is Holy and True. But humans are imperfect, unwise, and like the sounds of their own voices. I love Protestants, too, but feel that the theological legs supporting the Reformation are kind of wobbly.

Thousands upon thousands of differing and often irreconcilable ideas within Protestantism prove that though Sola Scriptura might *sound* like an awesome and sound idea, it doesn't work.

Not saying a Christian can't make it to Heaven equipped only with a Bible and loving and sincere faith in Christ, either. But just saying that I'm at a point where I realize that it's a flawed system from the word "go".

 

[dzheremi]

Sola Scriptura is not some grand theological ordinance. Rather, it is simply a rejection of the papacy.

The papacy was not founded by any direct observance of the Bible, but by the tradition of the Pharisees- they sat in the Seat of Moses, and so Rome attempts to sit in the Seat of Peter.

While I am very much not a Roman Catholic, it should probably be said that their insistence that this or that passage of the Bible gives sanction to their ecclesiology would both suggest that it is wrong that it is "not founded by any direct observance of the Bible" (i.e., you can ask them and they can give you standard proof texts that they feel show that the ecclesiology is established in the Bible) and help reveal the very problems inherent in Sola Scriptura pointed out by the OP; namely, that if it is up to this or that person to interpret the Bible according to their sense of what it means, then who can really say that Rome cannot claim that the Bible means whatever they say it means? Are they not doing the same, just with larger numbers and a longer back story?

It has been observed by people much smarter than me that the irony in the Sola Scriptura approach is that it replaces the supposedly infallible interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church with the private interpretation of the individual. How is this any different, really? It is more decentralized as an approach, sure, but it is still a matter of one person (the Pope or yourself) deciding what something should mean.

So you become your own Pope of your one man/woman Church of Yourself.

(I don't even think this is what those who originally suggested Sola Scriptura meant it to be about, but when you posit it as being in contrast to Rome, that invites such a direct comparison.)

 

[HighCherub]

While I am very much not a Roman Catholic, it should probably be said that their insistence that this or that passage of the Bible gives sanction to their ecclesiology would both suggest that it is wrong that it is "not founded by any direct observance of the Bible" (i.e., you can ask them and they can give you standard proof texts that they feel show that the ecclesiology is established in the Bible) and help reveal the very problems inherent in Sola Scriptura pointed out by the OP; namely, that if it is up to this or that person to interpret the Bible according to their sense of what it means, then who can really say that Rome cannot claim that the Bible means whatever they say it means? Are they not doing the same, just with larger numbers and a longer back story?

It has been observed by people much smarter than me that the irony in the Sola Scriptura approach is that it replaces the supposedly infallible interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church with the private interpretation of the individual. How is this any different, really? It is more decentralized as an approach, sure, but it is still a matter of one person (the Pope or yourself) deciding what something should mean.

So you become your own Pope of your one man/woman Church of Yourself.

(I don't even think this is what those who originally suggested Sola Scriptura meant it to be about, but when you posit it as being in contrast to Rome, that invites such a direct comparison.)

Luther and Calvin both believed in an ordinance of authority, but not to the extent of the papacy. Presbyterians are Calvinists, and they have an entire order of elders who vote pn important matters.

But even in smaller groups- lets say a traditional Baptist church- you see a similar type of ruling. Typically, the pastor elects council and they discuss by laws and canon.
Sola Scriptura adherents don't deny a natural progression of church authority- they simply reject the obnoxious grandness of the Roman churches daring to call themselves sole vicars of God.

 

[dzheremi]

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing how this is a reply to what I have written. Can you please clarify? Thank you.

 

[HighCherub]

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing how this is a reply to what I have written. Can you please clarify? Thank you.

That's because you're in over your head

 

[dzheremi]

Oh...? How unfortunate for me.

Still, I'd like some kind of explanation of what it is you are trying to say, because "they simply reject the obnoxious grandness of the Roman churches daring to call themselves sole vicars of God" does not answer how using Sola Scriptura as some kind of hermeneutic key does not effectively result in everyone becoming their own pope. In other words, how is what you are doing ultimately hermeneutically different from what they are doing? (Not how is it organizationally different.)

Because from the outside they can look very much alike to those who do not see sufficient reason to follow either Rome or Sola Scriptura.

 

[~Anastasia~]

All who post in Traditional Theology need to read the Statement of Purpose.

We are committed to civil discussion and mutual respect.

Most especially ...

You will not discuss nor refer to another individual in a flaming, taunting, goading or clearly negative manner. This includes images, cartoons even smileys clearly meant to goad the individual. You may criticize the content of the post, but not the poster.



Let's not make it personal, please. Thank you.

 

[ripple the car]

That's because you're in over your head

That is pretty much the least accurate thing that anyone could say about Dzheremi. He is a brilliant man, and goes on and on about stuff I have no idea what he's saying. He can quote the contents of the Council of Chalcedon. He's got an excellent grasp of the major and minor differences among various Orthodox Churches, and a good command of history. He's probably multi-lingual.

Saying he's in over his head when talking to you or I is like saying that Captain Sully couldn't fly a kite in a wind storm. Just saying.

 

[ripple the car]

Plus, he's got a really good point about Sola Scriptura.

Every one needs to consult some source on what Scripture means. I've met many Baptists who adhere to a Rapture view of eschatology. Where did this idea come from?

A Baptist may say that the doctrine of the Rapture is Biblical, but Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and the Amish don't agree.

 

[dzheremi]

It just seems strange to me that there is this tradition about Roman Catholicism found in certain strains of Protestantism that pits that church in particular against the Bible as though nothing they do is based in it or could be based in it by any interpretation, when if you actually talk to a Roman Catholic (maybe not just some guy or gal on the street, but certainly those who would engage in theological discussions on this website), they generally do have some idea of how their faith relates to the scriptures and vice-versa. Again, I don't even agree with them in the particulars, but I can still recognize that this is what they are doing when they quote the Gospel of St. Matthew (just for instance) to support their particular ecclesiology. Completely separate from my disagreement with their interpretation of it, St. Matthew's Gospel is in my Bible and everyone else's too.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This discussion, as is typical of such discussions, seems to have developed its stereotypical strawmen, e.g. Protestants are their own Popes vs. the Pope replacing the Bible. Neither, of course, is remotely true.

What is true is the nature of authority. The Catholic Church and other Traditional churches base their authority on their particular Holy Tradition. This Tradition is really quite loosely defined, even in the Catholic Church where dogmas are surprisingly few and far between. Churches which adhere to Sola Scriptura have the Bible alone and the final arbiter of the faith.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Sola Scriptura was originally defined as Scripture being the highest authority, not able to be contradicted - Scripture as interpreted by Tradition. In that sense the Orthodox Church fully agrees.

The only real question is your authority for interpretation, not really the authority of Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Sola Scriptura was originally defined as Scripture being the highest authority, not able to be contradicted - Scripture as interpreted by Tradition. In that sense the Orthodox Church fully agrees..

Who defined it that way?